CRICOS No. 00213J

Alexia Lennon 10th National Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion Conference

Brisbane November 2011

How effective is the new child restraint legislation in Queensland? A mixed methods evaluation

Acknowledgements

Queensland Injury Prevention Council

Department of Main Roads and Transport, Queensland

Colleagues who assisted with this project were

Millie Darvell, Colin Edmonston, Lauren Shaw, Kylie Major-Oakley, Sarah Biggs, Angela Watson, Andrea McCrindle, Kim Smith.

Overview

• Background

• Research interests

• Design

• The observational study

• Parent perspectives

• Conclusions

Background• Pre-2010

– restraint types only specified for infants (<12 mo)

– no seating position requirements

• From March 2010– restraint type specified (0-7 year olds)

– rear seating also required

• Prior to legislation high compliance

• However, concerns about age-appropriateness

Research interests

– Are parents complying with the legislation?– Is this the same for urban, regional and rural

parents? Indigenous parents?– What difficulties do parents experience in

complying?– Do parents understand why the legislation was

put in place?– Have there been negative consequences for

other organisations or sectors of the community?

Design

• Three cross-sectional studies: – Observations (road-side; vehicles with

child passengers)

– Parent interviews (non-Indigenous)/focus group (Indigenous)

– Stakeholder interviews

Study 1: Observations

• Road side in Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Mackay, Townsville; high child traffic (schools, shopping areas, major intersections)

• Included passenger vehicles w rear seat (n = 1922) carrying child passengers (n = 2791);

• Measures: – Number of child passengers; restraint type (RF,

FFCS, Booster seat, H harness, seatbelt) and seating position (front, rear); estimation of child age (0-2 y; 3-6 y; 7-12 y) based on seated height

Results: observations(1)

• Majority of vehicles (62%) only 1 child passenger;

• Around 1/3 (32%) of vehicles had a child in front seat

• 85% overall (0-12 y) ‘Appropriate’ restraint • 22% child passengers were in front seat • Restraint type of choice was seatbelt- 53% of

children overall; 23% forward-facing child seats; 17% in booster seats

Results: observations (2)

51% children estimated as target age (0-6 y)

For target-aged children:– 73% ‘Appropriate’ restraint – 5.5% in front seats

For rear seated target-aged children– 73% dedicated child restraint; 15% seatbelt;

3.9% unrestrained

Target-aged children more likely than older children to be inappropriately restrained χ2

(2) = 307.83, p<.001, φc=.33

Appropriateness of restraint for 0-6 year olds by location (rear seat only)

Inappropriately restrained

n (%)

Appropriately restrained

n (%) N = 1313

Location

Brisbane South 85 (21.9) 303 (78.1)

Brisbane North 41 (20.6) 158 (79.4)

Townsville 31 (14.6) 182 (85.4)

Mackay 62 (34.6) 117(65.4)

Sunshine Coast 53 (15.9) 281 (84.1) χ2 (4) = 31.16, p < .001, φc=.15

Study 2: Parent perspectives

• Convenience sample, shopping centres in same locations as obs (n = 490 parents of 769 children aged 0-7 y); Brief interview (<10 min)– Type of restraint for each child; awareness of

change in legislation; ease of compliance; support for changes

• Indigenous parents (n = 11) focus group, Woorabinda– understanding of new requirements; support for

changes in legislation; barriers to compliance

Results: parents(1)

• Non-Indigenous parents:– 56% of children reportedly using forward-

facing child seats; 31% booster seat; 1% seatbelt

– 90% children ‘appropriate’ restraint; 85% of parents ‘appropriate’ restraint practices

– 2-4 year old children significantly more likely to be deemed ‘inappropriately’ restrained (χ2 (3) = 38.15, p<.001, φc=.22)

Results: parents(2)

• Indigenous parents:– Supported the legislation change– Perceived the purpose as to protect children– Identified barriers to compliance:

• Cost• Belief that can’t legally use 2nd hand restraints• Confusion about whether age or weight is most

important in selecting restraints • Belief that don’t need restraints on short journeys (esp.

around town) • Retrofitting of anchor points to vehicles difficult (utes)• Lack of qualified installers

Conclusions• Legislation apparently effective both in

encouraging more appropriate restraint use and seating position for target-aged children

• More modest overall effect than desired• High parental awareness that requirements

have changed• Critical ages are still the transition ages• Significant barriers to compliance exist for

vulnerable groups

Questions?