Investigating helmet promotion for cyclists: results from a randomised study with observation of behaviour, using a semi-automatic video system.

Authors:
Aymery Constant, PhD, MPsych
Aymery Constant, PhD, MPsych
EHESP School of Public Health
lecturer
Health psychology and behaviours
Rennes | France

PLoS One 2012 15;7(2):e31651. Epub 2012 Feb 15.

INSERM U897-IFR99, Equipe Avenir Prévention et Prise en Charge des Traumatismes, ISPED, Bordeaux, France.

Introduction: Half of fatal injuries among bicyclists are head injuries. While helmet use is likely to provide protection, their use often remains rare. We assessed the influence of strategies for promotion of helmet use with direct observation of behaviour by a semi-automatic video system.

Methods: We performed a single-centre randomised controlled study, with 4 balanced randomisation groups. Participants were non-helmet users, aged 18-75 years, recruited at a loan facility in the city of Bordeaux, France. After completing a questionnaire investigating their attitudes towards road safety and helmet use, participants were randomly assigned to three groups with the provision of "helmet only", "helmet and information" or "information only", and to a fourth control group. Bikes were labelled with a colour code designed to enable observation of helmet use by participants while cycling, using a 7-spot semi-automatic video system located in the city. A total of 1557 participants were included in the study.

Results: Between October 15th 2009 and September 28th 2010, 2621 cyclists' movements, made by 587 participants, were captured by the video system. Participants seen at least once with a helmet amounted to 6.6% of all observed participants, with higher rates in the two groups that received a helmet at baseline. The likelihood of observed helmet use was significantly increased among participants of the "helmet only" group (OR = 7.73 [2.09-28.5]) and this impact faded within six months following the intervention. No effect of information delivery was found.

Conclusion: Providing a helmet may be of value, but will not be sufficient to achieve high rates of helmet wearing among adult cyclists. Integrated and repeated prevention programmes will be needed, including free provision of helmets, but also information on the protective effect of helmets and strategies to increase peer and parental pressure.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031651PLOS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3280326PMC
June 2012
30 Reads
3.234 Impact Factor

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

video system
12
semi-automatic video
12
helmet
9
participants
8
"helmet only"
8
observation behaviour
8
helmet participants
8
behaviour semi-automatic
8
september 28th
4
2009 september
4
studyresults october
4
1557 participants
4
total 1557
4
participants included
4
included studyresults
4
october 15th
4
15th 2009
4
2010 2621
4
system participants
4
captured video
4

References

(Supplied by CrossRef)
Protecting vulnerable road users from injury.
A Constant et al.
PLoS Med 2010
Helmets for preventing injury in motorcycle riders.
BC Liu et al.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008
Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists.
DC Thompson et al.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000
Transport safety performance in the EU. A statistical Overview
2003
Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis.
RG Attewell et al.
Accid Anal Prev 2001
Bicycle helmet legislation: can we reach a consensus?
DL Robinson et al.
Accid Anal Prev 2007
Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws.
DL Robinson et al.
Accid Anal Prev 1996

Similar Publications