Search

Background: Cell phone use while driving (CPWD) increases the risk of crashing and is a major contributor to injuries and deaths. The objective of this study was to describe the evaluation of a multifaceted, evidence-based population health strategy for the reduction of distracted driving., Methods: A multipronged campaign was undertaken from 2014 to 2016 for 16- to 44-year-olds, based on epidemiology, focused on personal stories and consequences, using the "Es" of injury prevention (epidemiology, education, environment, enforcement, and evaluation). Education consisted of distracted driving videos, informational cards, a social media AdTube campaign, and a movie theater trailer, which were evaluated with a questionnaire regarding CPWD attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. Spatial analysis of data within a geographic information system was used to target advertisements. A random sample telephone survey evaluated public awareness of the campaign. Increased CPWD enforcement was undertaken by police services and evaluated by ARIMA time series modeling., Results: The AdTube campaign had a view rate of >10% (41,101 views), slightly higher for females. The top performing age group was 18- to 24-year-olds (49%). Our survey found 61% of respondents used handheld CPWD (14% all of the time) with 80% reporting our movie trailer made them think twice about future CPWD. A stakeholder survey and spatial analysis targeted our advertisements in areas of close proximity to high schools, universities, near intersections with previous motor vehicle collisions, high traffic volumes, and population density. A telephone survey revealed that 41% of the respondents were aware of our campaign, 17% from our print and movie theater ads and 3% from social media. Police enforcement campaign blitzes resulted in 160 tickets for CPWD. Following campaign implementation, there was a statistically significant mean decrease of 462 distracted driving citations annually (p = 0.001)., Conclusion: A multifaceted, evidence-based population health strategy using the Es of injury prevention with interdisciplinary collaboration is a comprehensive method to be used for the reduction of distracted driving., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, level IV., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study was initiated was initiated to describe pediatric rear-occupant motor vehicle collision (MVC) injuries, including injury patterns and outcomes as well as characteristics associated with severe injury to the head and abdomen., Methods: A retrospective cohort of severely injured (Injury Severity Score [ISS] > 12) pediatric (age <18 years) patients involved in a traffic MVC as a rear occupant and treated at one of two Ontario trauma centers (2001-2010) was studied was studied. Demographic, injury, crash and outcome data were obtained from the trauma registries. Data were statistically compared by two pediatric age groups: children (0-8 years; requiring a child or booster seat) versus adolescents (9-17 years; requiring a lap-shoulder belt)., Results: There were 36 children (34%) and 70 adolescents (66%) severely injured as rear occupants in MVCs. Despite similar ISS (p = 0.716) and mortality rates (p = 0.680) between age groups, there were significant differences in injury patterns and risk factors. Children were more likely to have severe head injuries (78% vs. 39%, p < 0.001) associated with a lack of an age-appropriate child restraints (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-10.8; p = 0.029), middle seating (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.5-26.1; p = 0.013), and side-impact crashes (p = 0.007). Adolescents were more likely to have severe abdominal injuries (23% vs. 6%, p < 0.001) associated with the use of lap-shoulder belts (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.3; p = 0.034), single-vehicle MVCs (p = 0.007), and vehicle extrications (p = 0.035)., Conclusion: While safer than the front seat for children, additional study is needed on the restraint systems and the potential for injury to pediatric rear occupants in an MVC. Our data suggest that pediatric age groups differ in injuries, risk factors, and MVC impacts. Recommendations for improved protection of child occupants and preferred seating positions are required., Level of Evidence: Epidemiologic study, level III.