Education, incentive, and engineering-based interventions to promote the use of seat belts.

BACKGROUND: Over 1.3 million people die each year as a result of traffic collisions and hundreds of thousands of others are permanently and seriously injured. Most of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, where mortality rates can be up to 10 times higher than those of some high-income countries. Seat belts are designed to accomplish two key functions - to prevent the occupant from being ejected from the vehicle by the force of impact, and to extend the time that the decelerating force is applied to a person. Seat belts also spread the area of impact both to larger and less vulnerable parts of the body. Since the 1950s, seat belts have been factory-fitted to most vehicles, and today around 90% of high-income countries have adopted seat belt legislation that makes it mandatory for some, if not all, vehicle occupants to wear seat belts. However, the simple passing of laws is not sufficient to ensure seat belt use, and, while the enforcement of seat belt laws does increase seat belt use, other interventions have been developed to encourage voluntary - and hence sustainable - behaviour change. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits of behavioural-change interventions (educational-based, incentive-based, engineering-based, or a combination, but not enforcement-based) that promote the use of seat belts, and to determine which types of interventions are most effective. SEARCH METHODS: On 9 August 2022, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), OvidSP Embase, OvidSP MEDLINE, 14 other databases, and clinical trials registers. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings, searched websites of relevant organisations, and contacted road safety experts. The search was performed with no restrictions in terms of language and date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both individually randomised and cluster-randomised, that evaluated education, engineering, incentive-based interventions (or combinations) that promoted seat belt use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of RCTs, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed a narrative synthesis based on effect direction due to the heterogeneity observed between RCTs and reported the synthesis in accordance with reporting guidelines for systematic reviews without meta-analysis, as appropriate. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We analysed data on the primary outcome, frequency of wearing a seat belt. None of the included RCTs reported the other primary outcome, crash-related injury rate or the secondary outcome, crash-related mortality rates of interest in this review. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 completed RCTs (12 individual, parallel-group, and three cluster) that enroled 12,081 participants, published between 1990 and 2022. Four trials were published between 2019 and 2022, and the remaining trials were published 10 or more years ago. We also identified four ongoing RCTs. Thirteen RCTs were conducted in the USA. Trials recruited participants from various sites (worksites, schools, emergency departments, a residential retirement community, and primary care settings) and different age groups (adults, late adolescents, early adolescents, and dyads). Thirteen trials investigated educational interventions, one of which used education in addition to incentives (one of the intervention arms) measured through participant self-reports (12) and observation (one), and two trials investigated engineering-based interventions measured through in-vehicle data monitor systems at various follow-up periods (six weeks to 36 months). We grouped RCTs according to types of education-based interventions: behavioural education-based, health risk appraisal (HRA), and other education-based interventions. The evidence suggests that behavioural education-based (four trials) interventions may promote seat belt use and HRA interventions (one trial) likely promote seat belt use in the short term (six weeks to nine months). Four of the six trials that investigated behavioural education-based interventions found that the intervention compared to no or another intervention may promote seat belt use. These effects were measured through participant self-report and at various time points (six-week to 12-month follow-up) (low-certainty evidence). One of the three trials investigating HRA only or with additional intervention versus no or another intervention showed observed effects likely to promote seat belt use (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that engineering-based interventions using vehicle monitoring systems (with in-vehicle alerts and with or without notifications/feedback) may promote the use of seat belts. One trial showed that engineering interventions (in-vehicle alerts and feedback) may promote seat belt use while the other showed unclear effects in two of the three intervention groups (low-certainty evidence). Both trials had small sample sizes and high baseline seat belt use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that behavioural education-based interventions may promote seat belt use and HRA (including incentives) with or without additional interventions likely promote seat belt use. Likewise, for engineering-based interventions using in-vehicle data monitor systems with in-vehicle alerts, with or without notifications/feedback the evidence suggests the interventions may promote the use of seat belts. Well-designed RCTs are needed to further investigate the effectiveness of education and engineering-based interventions. High-quality trials that examine the potential benefits of incentives to promote seat belt use, either alone or in combination with other interventions, as well as trials to investigate other types of interventions (such as technology, media/publicity, enforcement, insurance schemes, employer programmes, etc.) to promote the use of seat belts, are needed. Evidence from low- and middle-income economies is required to improve the generalisability of the data. In addition, research focused on determining which interventions or types of interventions are most effective in different population groups is needed.

Policy framework that addresses malnutrition in Namibia: A retrospective qualitative review.

BACKGROUND: Although Namibia has made strides in improving the policy enabling environment, eradication of malnutrition is still elusive. OBJECTIVE: This review was aimed at determining the extent to which food and nutrition-related policies in Namibia address malnutrition. METHODS: This study used a qualitative approach by retrospectively analysing policy frameworks that address malnutrition in Namibia from 1991 to 2022. The analysis employed the policy triangle framework to elucidate the contextual factors, content, actors and process involved in the policy development. Moreover, a comparative analysis of Namibian policies and those of other southern African countries was undertaken. RESULTS: The review showed that there is a considerable degree of coherence in policy goals and strategies to address malnutrition despite parallel coordination structures. Policy process involved limited consultations with local communities which might have jeopardised the formulation of community problem-tailored interventions, ownership and participation in policy implementation. There is a strong political commitment to the eradication of malnutrition in Namibia. The Office of the Prime Minister played a leading role in policy development. Influential actors such as the UN agencies elevated the nutrition agenda. Further, the Namibian policy framework was generally similar to those of other southern African countries. CONCLUSIONS: The review showed that Namibia has relevant and comprehensive policies to address malnutrition, however, contextual factors indicated high levels of malnutrition still exist in the communities. Further research is needed to understand the barriers and enablers to optimal nutrition for children under five years in Namibia.

Severe traumatic brain injuries secondary to motor vehicle crashes in two Namibian regions: A retrospective review.

Introduction: Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among trauma patients globally, with motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) being a major contributor. Namibia had a World Health Organization (WHO) estimated MVC-related fatality rate of 30.4 per 100 000 population in 2016, higher than that of the African continent, while no epidemiological studies describing the distribution and determinants of TBIs exist in the country. The study aimed to describe the characteristics of adult patients (≥18 years) with severe TBI secondary to MVCs which occurred in two regions of Namibia between the years 2014-2018. Methods: A retrospective descriptive observational study was conducted in adult patients who sustained severe TBIs secondary to MVCs in two Namibian regions. The inclusion criteria were patients ≥18 years with a severe (as described on the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund system) MVC-related TBI who sustained an injury in the Otjozondjupa or Khomas regions between the years 2014-2018. Results: A total of 87 patients met the inclusion criteria, 65 (74.7%) from the Khomas region, and 22 (25.3%) from the Otjozondjupa region. The overall mean age of patients was 34 years (SD 11.79), most were male (n = 78. 89.7%) and 55.2% (n = 48) of all patients sustained an isolated TBI. The majority of the patients were admitted to a state healthcare facility (n = 52, 59.8%). Pedestrians were the most injured (n = 34, 52.3%) in the Khomas region while vehicle drivers were the most injured (n = 11, 50%) in the Otjozondjupa Region. A total of 34 (39.1%) patients died and 53 (60.9%) were discharged from hospital. Overall, there were no statistically significant relationships between patient outcomes and independent variables. Conclusions: The study was to our knowledge the first to describe the epidemiology of TBIs in Namibia. Young individuals are the main people who sustained TBIs, which may subsequently place a socio-economic burden on the country. There is however limited research in Namibia to guide healthcare planning.

Managing acute abdominal pain in the emergency centre: Lessons from a patient's experience.

Pain is one of the most common reasons people present to the emergency centre with 7-10% of presentations being due to acute abdominal pain. However, pain is also often neglected by clinicians in emergency centres. The well validated South African Triage Score (SATS) incorporates pain assessment in the prioritising of patients with the aim of guiding clinicians. Based on the SATS, severe pain (a score of ≥8 out of 10) should prompt the clinician to initiate treatment within 10 min of presentation, as unmanaged pain has multiple negative consequences, including poor outcomes of the acute incident with delayed healing and increased risk of developing chronic pain. In this commentary, we present a patient's experience when attending an emergency centre for acute abdominal pain, describe relevant pain mechanisms and highlight the stages where clinical management could have been optimised.

Rapid sequence intubation: a survey of current practice in the South African pre-hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is an advanced airway skill commonly performed in the pre-hospital setting globally. In South Africa, pre-hospital RSI was first approved for non-physician providers by the Health Professions Council of South Africa in 2009 and introduced as part of the scope of practice of degree qualified Emergency Care Practitioners (ECPs) only. The research study aimed to investigate and describe, based on the components of the minimum standards of pre-hospital RSI in South Africa, specific areas of interest related to current pre-hospital RSI practice. METHODS: An online descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst operational ECPs in the pre-hospital setting of South Africa, using convenience and snowball sampling strategies. RESULTS: A total of 87 participants agreed to partake. Eleven (12.6%) incomplete survey responses were excluded while 76 (87.4%) were included in the data analysis. The survey response rate could not be calculated. Most participants were operational in Gauteng (n = 27, 35.5%) and the Western Cape (n = 25, 32.9%). Overall participants reported that their education and training were perceived as being of good quality. The majority of participants (n = 69, 90.8%) did not participate in an internship programme before commencing duties as an independent practitioner. Most RSI and post-intubation equipment were reported to be available; however, our results found that introducer stylets and/or bougies and end-tidal carbon dioxide devices are not available to some participants. Only 50 (65.8%) participants reported the existence of a clinical governance system within their organisation. Furthermore, our results indicate a lack of clinical feedback, deficiency of an RSI database, infrequent clinical review meetings and a shortage of formal consultation frameworks. CONCLUSION: The practice of safe and effective pre-hospital RSI, performed by non-physician providers or ECPs, relies on comprehensive implementation and adherence to all the components of the minimum standards. Although there is largely an apparent alignment with the minimum standards, recurrent revision of practice needs to occur to ensure alignment with recommendations. Additionally, some areas may benefit from further research to improve current practice.

Emergency care providers' perspectives of acute pain assessment and management in the prehospital setting, in the Western Cape, South Africa: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: A growing body of evidence suggests that pain knowledge and management are poor, perhaps more so in the prehospital setting. The daily challenges that emergency care providers face in dealing with prehospital pain remain unclear. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of acute prehospital pain assessment and management in the Western Cape, South Africa. METHODS: A series of focus group discussions, using a constructivist paradigm and qualitative content analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The key themes emerging from six focus groups (total 25 emergency care providers) related to the difficulties of assessing pain in this setting, factors affecting clinical reasoning in this (hostile) setting, the realities of prehospital pain care for non-advanced life support practitioners, along with emergency departments' lack of understanding and appreciation of the prehospital environment, and participants' suggestions to improve pain practice. CONCLUSION: Several barriers and enablers, some novel, to pain assessment and management in the South African prehospital setting were identified. Our findings provide valuable insight and understanding of the challenges related to pain care prehospital providers face, in other similar prehospital settings, but also to the global body of knowledge on prehospital barriers and enablers of pain assessment and management.

Prehospital acute traumatic pain assessment and management practices in the Western Cape, South Africa: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a common aetiology of acute pain in the emergency setting, and traumatic injuries have been recognised as a global public health crisis leading to numerous deaths and disabilities. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of acute pain among high acuity trauma patients presenting to a public sector emergency medical service and to describe prehospital acute traumatic pain assessment and management practices amongst emergency care providers in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic patient care reports of trauma patients treated by the South African Western Cape Emergency Medical Services between January 1 and December 31, 2017 was conducted. Stratified random sampling was utilised to select 2401 trauma patients out of 24,575 that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the 2401 patients reviewed, 435 (18.1%) had a pain score recorded, of which 423 (97.2%) were experiencing pain. An additional 8.1% (n = 194) of patients had pain or tenderness mentioned in the working diagnosis but no pain score noted. Eighty-one (18.6%) patients experienced mild pain, 175 (40.2%) moderate pain and 167 (38.2%) severe pain. No association was found between a pain score recorded and age group (≤ 14 versus > 14 years) (p = 0.649) or gender (p = 0.139). Only 7.6% of patients with moderate-to-severe pain and 2.8% of all trauma patients received any form of analgesic medication. No association was found between the administration of analgesia and age group (≤ 14 versus > 14 years) (p = 0.151) or gender (p = 0.054). Patients were more likely to receive analgesia if they had a pain score recorded (p < 0.001), were managed by advanced life support practitioners (p < 0.001) or had severe pain (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Acute trauma pain assessment and management practices in this prehospital cohort are less well established than reported elsewhere and whether this reflects emergency care training, institutional culture, scopes of practice or analgesic resources, requires further research. Emergency medical services need to monitor and promote quality pain care, enhance pain education and ensure that all levels of emergency care providers have access to analgesic medication approved for prehospital use. Clear and rational guidelines would enable better pain management by all cadres of providers, for all levels of pain.

Acute pain assessment and management in the prehospital setting, in the Western Cape, South Africa: a knowledge, attitudes and practices survey.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain is frequently encountered in the prehospital setting, and therefore, a fundamental aspect of quality emergency care. Research has shown a positive association between healthcare providers' knowledge of, and attitudes towards pain and pain management practices. This study aimed to describe the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of emergency care providers regarding acute pain assessment and management in the prehospital setting, in the Western Cape, South Africa. The specific objectives were to, identify gaps in pain knowledge; assess attitudes regarding pain assessment and management; describe pain assessment and management behaviours and practices; and identify barriers to and enablers of pain care. METHODS: A web-based descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among emergency care providers of all qualifications, using a face-validated Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Pain survey. RESULTS: Responses of 100 participants were included in the analysis. The survey response rate could not be calculated. The mean age of respondents was 34.74 (SD 8.13) years and the mean years' experience 10.02 (SD 6.47). Most respondents were male (69%), employed in the public/government sector (93%) as operational practitioners (85%) with 54% of respondents having attended medical education on pain care in the last 2 years. The mean percentage for knowledge and attitudes regarding pain among emergency care providers was 58.01% (SD 15.66) with gaps identified in various aspects of pain and pain care. Practitioners with higher qualifications, more years' experience and those who did not attend medical education on pain, achieved higher scores. Alcohol and drug use by patients were the most selected barrier to pain care while the availability of higher qualified practitioners was the most selected enabler. When asked to record pain scores, practitioners were less inclined to assign scores which were self-reported by the patients in the case scenarios. The participant dropout rate was 35%. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that there is suboptimal knowledge and attitudes regarding pain among emergency care providers in the Western Cape, South Africa. Gaps in pain knowledge, attitudes and practices were identified. Some barriers and enablers of pain care in the South African prehospital setting were identified but further research is indicated.

Acute Pain in the African Prehospital Setting: A Scoping Review.

Background: Acute pain is a common reason for seeking prehospital emergency care. Regrettably, acute pain is often underestimated and poorly managed in this setting. The scoping review was conducted to gain insight into existing research on the topic and to make recommendations for future work. Objectives: To identify all available evidence related to acute pain assessment and management in the African prehospital setting, describe the extent of the evidence, encapsulate findings, and identify research gaps. Methods: The scoping review considered primary and secondary research related to acute pain assessment and management of both medical and traumatic origins in all age groups in the African prehospital setting. The search strategy aimed to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing research which met the inclusion criteria. Potentially eligible studies were identified by a comprehensive search of electronic databases, trial registers, dissertation/thesis databases, grey literature databases, and conference proceedings. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Results: The comprehensive search identified 3823 potential studies, duplicate titles were removed, and 3358 titles/abstracts were screened. Full text of 66 potentially eligible titles was screened, 60 were excluded, and six publications met the inclusion criteria. Despite recommendations for pain assessment during general patient care, most studies reported no/limited pain assessment. In general, pain management was concluded to be insufficient and not conforming to best practice. Conclusions: Only six publications addressing prehospital acute pain care in Africa could be identified, possibly indicative of a knowledge gap. Future research is indicated to enable a better understanding of the epidemiology of acute pain and barriers and enablers of acute pain care and to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) catering for all EMS systems in Africa. Additionally, educational initiatives should be implemented to improve the quality of acute pain care and to monitor quality through continuous quality improvement (CQI) programs.

Pre-hospital versus in-hospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Early thrombolysis for individuals experiencing a myocardial infarction is associated with better mortality and morbidity outcomes. While traditionally thrombolysis is given in hospital, pre-hospital thrombolysis is proposed as an effective intervention to save time and reduce mortality and morbidity in individuals with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Despite some evidence that pre-hospital thrombolysis may be delivered safely, there is a paucity of controlled trial data to indicate whether the timing of delivery can be effective in reducing key clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the morbidity and mortality of pre-hospital versus in-hospital thrombolysis for STEMI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), two citation indexes on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for randomised controlled trials and grey literature published up to June 2014. We also searched the reference lists of articles identified, clinical trial registries and unpublished thesis sources. We did not contact pharmaceutical companies for any relevant published or unpublished articles. We applied no language, date or publication restrictions. The Cochrane Heart Group conducted the primary electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of pre-hospital versus in-hospital thrombolysis in adults with ST-elevation myocardial infarction diagnosed by a healthcare provider. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened eligible studies for inclusion and carried out data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments, resolving any disagreement by consulting a third author. We contacted authors of potentially suitable studies if we required missing or additional information. We collected efficacy and adverse effect data from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials involving 538 participants. We found low quality of evidence indicating uncertainty whether pre-hopsital thrombolysis reduces all-cause mortality in individuals with STEMI compared to in-hospital thrombolysis (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.41). We found high-quality evidence (two trials, 438 participants) that pre-hospital thrombolysis reduced the time to receipt of thrombolytic treatment compared with in-hospital thrombolysis. For adverse events, we found moderate-quality evidence that the occurrence of bleeding events was similar between participants receiving in-hospital or pre-hospital thrombolysis (two trials, 438 participants), and low-quality evidence that the occurrence of ventricular fibrillation (two trials, 178 participants), stroke (one trial, 78 participants) and allergic reactions (one trial, 100 participants) was also similar between participants receiving in-hospital or pre-hospital thrombolysis. We considered the included studies to have an overall unclear/high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pre-hospital thrombolysis reduces time to treatment, based on studies conducted in higher income countries. In settings where it can be safely and correctly administered by trained staff, pre-hospital thrombolysis may be an appropriate intervention. Pre-hospital thrombolysis has the potential to reduce the burden of STEMI in lower- and middle-income countries, especially in individuals who have limited access to in-hospital thrombolysis or percutaneous coronary interventions. We found no randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of pre-hospital thrombolysis for STEMI in lower- and middle-income countries. Large high-quality multicentre randomised controlled trials implemented in resource-constrained countries will provide additional evidence for the efficacy and safety of this intervention. Local policy makers should consider their local health infrastructure and population distribution needs. These considerations should be taken into account when developing clinical guidelines for pre-hospital thrombolysis.