Assessing seatbelt use among pregnant drivers in Australia: Correct seatbelt positioning, discomfort, knowledge and information sources
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
• Correct seatbelt use during pregnancy is critical for ensuring maternal and fetal safety. • An online survey evaluated seatbelt use among 1,491 pregnant vehicle drivers in Australia. • Nearly all participants wore seatbelts (99.1%), but only 41.4% used correct seatbelt positioning. • Discomfort increased with pregnancy, but was not associated with correct seatbelt positioning. • Receiving information on seatbelt use significantly improved correct positioning. Background : Correct seatbelt use during pregnancy is critical for ensuring maternal and fetal safety during a motor vehicle crash. This study aimed to investigate seatbelt use among pregnant vehicle drivers in Australia, focusing on correct seatbelt positioning and the potential influence of comfort and the receipt of seatbelt information. Method: An online survey was completed by 1,491 participants (M = 33.2 years, SD = 4.1, Range = 18.0 – 50.0 years). Results: While nearly all participants (99.1%) reported ‘always’ wearing their seatbelt while driving a vehicle, only 41.4% met the correct seatbelt positioning criteria, defined as positioning the lap belt under the belly and low over the upper thighs and the shoulder belt between the breasts. Despite increased discomfort with seatbelt use as pregnancy advanced, discomfort was not significantly associated with correct seatbelt positioning. Additionally, while most participants had not received information about seatbelt use during pregnancy (87.7%), those who did had better knowledge (96.2% vs. 90.5%, χ2(1) = 7.16, p < 0.05), and were more likely to meet all three criteria for correct seatbelt positioning during pregnancy (56.8% vs. 39.3%, χ2(1) = 20.26, p < 0.001), than participants who had not received information (90.5%). However, receiving information did not necessarily increase confidence in correct seatbelt use, as participants who had received information were actually less likely to be confident in their ability to use the seatbelt correctly (3.3% vs. 6.6%, χ2(2) = 8.24, p < 0.05). Conclusions : These findings highlight a significant gap in correct seatbelt positioning among pregnant occupants and the scope for substantial improvement in correct positioning by providing specific information on seatbelt use during pregnancy. Practical applications: To improve correct seatbelt use among pregnant individuals, public health messaging should be enhanced, and obstetrician-gynaecologists, nurses and other healthcare professionals should provide clear guidance on correct seatbelt positioning throughout the pregnancy. Future research should focus on developing effective educational strategies, assessing vehicle design improvements for comfort and safety, and exploring other factors influencing correct seatbelt use during pregnancy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».