You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original article
Comparison of the effectiveness of hands-on versus online education in child passenger safety
  1. Anita Mantha1,
  2. Kristen L Beckworth2,
  3. John A Ansiaux3,
  4. Carol C Chen4,
  5. Benjamin Hoffman5,
  6. Rohit P Shenoi6
  1. 1 Department of Pediatrics, Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
  2. 2 Center for Childhood Injury Prevention, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
  3. 3 University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
  4. 4 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  5. 5 Doernbecher Children’s Hospital Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
  6. 6 Department of Pediatrics, Section of Emergency Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rohit P Shenoi, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Emergency Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, 6621 Fannin, Suite A 2210, Houston, TX 77030, USA; rshenoi{at}bcm.edu

Abstract

Background Community paediatricians’ knowledge of appropriate child safety seat (CSS) use in vehicles may be inadequate. We compared the effectiveness of hands-on and online education in improving and retaining child passenger safety (CPS) knowledge and skills among paediatric trainees.

Methods Paediatric trainees were randomised to receive hands-on skills training versus a 1-hour online module in CPS. CSS knowledge and installation skills were assessed using a validated 10-item/point questionnaire and an assessment tool respectively at baseline and after 6 months. Preintervention and postintervention knowledge improvement and CSS installation skills between groups were assessed using paired t-tests and effect size (d).

Results Forty-eight students agreed to participate and were randomised. Thirty-nine completed training (hands-on: 23 and online: 15). At entry, no significant differences in learners’ demographics and prior CPS education existed. Baseline CPS knowledge scores did not differ significantly between groups (p=0.26). Postintervention, both groups demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge scores (hands-on=3.1 (95% CI 2.4 to 3.7), p<0.0001; online=2.6 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.3), p<0.0001), though the pre–post gain in knowledge scores were not significantly different between groups (p=0.35). At follow-up, both groups demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge scores (hands-on=1.8 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.4), p<0.0001; online=1.1 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.6), p<0.0001) with the hands-on group scores significantly better than the online group (p<0.02). The long-term gain in knowledge scores was not significantly different between groups (p=0.12).

Baseline CSS installation skill scores did not significantly differ between groups for forward-facing seats (p=0.16) and rear-facing seats (p=0.51). At follow-up, mean CSS installation skill scores significantly increased for the hands-on group (forward-facing seat: 0.8 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.44), p<0.02; rear-facing seat: 1.2 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.7), p<0.001) but not for the online group (forward-facing seat: 0.9 (95% CI −0.08 to 1.9), p=0.07); rear-facing seat: −0.2 (95% CI −1.1 to 0.7), p=0.6).

Conclusions Among paediatric trainees, hands-on and online CPS education are both effective in improving long-term CPS knowledge. Long-term installation skills for forward-facing and rear-facing CSS persist for hands-on education but are inconclusive for online education.

  • education
  • randomized trial
  • motor vehicle occupant

https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042430

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AM conceived and designed the study. She acquired the data and interpreted the data, drafted the article and critically revised it for important intellectual content. She approved the version to be published. KLB and JAA helped design the study. They acquired and interpreted the data, drafted the article and critically revised it for important intellectual content. They approved the version to be published. CCC acquired and interpreted the data, drafted the article and critically revised it for important intellectual content. She approved the version to be published. BH helped design the study. He interpreted the data, helped in drafting the article and critically revised it for important intellectual content. He approved the version to be published. RPS conceived and designed the study. He acquired the data, analysed and interpreted the data, drafted the article and critically revised it for important intellectual content. He approved the version to be published.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval Baylor College of Medicine.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.