Simon Royal

Promoting bicycle helmet wearing by children using non-legislative interventions: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of non-legislative interventions in increasing bicycle helmet use among children and young people, and to identify possible reasons for differential effectiveness of interventions. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: 10 electronic databases were searched up to October 2006. Several other sources of potentially relevant information were identified and examined. Review methods: We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies of interventions to promote bicycle helmet use, which did not require the enactment of legislation. Participants were aged between 0 and 18 years. Main outcome measure: Observed helmet wearing. Results: 13 studies were included in the review and 11 in the meta-analysis. The odds of observed helmet wearing were significantly greater among children and young people in the intervention groups (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.35). Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect might be greater for community-based studies (4.57, 2.37 to 8.81) and those providing free helmets (4.60, 2.25 to 9.43) than for those providing subsidized helmets (2.11, 1.09 to 4.06) and those set in schools (1.73, 1.04 to 2.89). Evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions was stronger in studies with follow-up periods of ⩽6 months (2.23, 1.27 to 3.90) than in those with longer-term follow-up (1.63, 0.91 to 2.91). Conclusions: Non-legislative interventions are effective in increasing bicycle helmet use among children and young people. Community-based helmet promotion programmes that include the provision of free helmets may increase observed helmet wearing to a greater extent than those set in schools or those providing subsidized helmets.

Cycle helmet ownership and use; a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary school children in deprived areas

Aims: To assess the effectiveness of two different educational interventions plus free cycle helmets, in increasing cycle helmet ownership and use. Methods: A cluster randomised controlled trial was carried out in 28 primary schools in deprived areas of Nottingham, involving 1213 year 5 schoolchildren (age 9 and 10). Children received either a helmet + educational pack (educational pack and order form for free cycle helmet) or a helmet + multifaceted intervention (educational pack, order form for free cycle helmet, school assembly, lesson devoted to cycle helmet education, and an invitation to a school based cycling event). Results: The helmet + educational pack was as effective as the helmet + multifaceted intervention in terms of helmet ownership (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.58) and wearing (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.68). Helmet ownership significantly increased from baseline with both interventions, and wearing significantly increased from baseline with the helmet + educational pack. The interventions reduced the inequality in helmet ownership between children residing in deprived and non-deprived areas that had been present prior to the study. Conclusions: An educational pack plus a form to order a free cycle helmet is an effective way of increasing bicycle helmet ownership and use and reduces inequalities in helmet ownership among children in deprived areas. Further work is needed to determine the length of the effect of such interventions.

Inequalities in cycle helmet use: cross sectional survey in schools in deprived areas of Nottingham

Aims: To describe cycle helmet owning and wearing among children in a deprived area and to investigate the association between helmet ownership and wearing and socioeconomic deprivation. Methods: Cross sectional survey in 28 primary schools in deprived areas of Nottingham; 1061 year 5 schoolchildren were studied. Results: All year 5 children attending school on the day of the survey completed the questionnaire (87% of children registered at participating schools). Children residing in a deprived area were less likely to own a bike and more likely to ride it four days a week or more. Half the children owned a helmet (52%), but only 29% of these always wore their helmet. Children in deprived areas were less likely to own a helmet, but those that owned a helmet were not less likely to always wear one. Family encouragement and parental warning of dangers of not wearing a helmet were associated with increased helmet ownership rates. Family encouragement and best friends wearing a helmet were associated with higher rates of helmet wearing. Conclusions: Programmes aimed at preventing head injury among child cyclists will need to address the inequality in helmet ownership that exists between children residing in deprived and non-deprived areas. Strategies to increase family encouragement to wear a helmet may be useful, as may those recognising the importance of the attitudes and behaviours of peers, such as peer education programmes. Further work is required to assess how exposure to risk of cycling injury varies with deprivation.