Matched analysis of parent's and children's attitudes and practices towards motor vehicle and bicycle safety: an important information gap.

The purpose of this study was to compare parents' and children's attitudes and habits towards use of bicycle helmets and car seat belts. We hypothesized that parental perception of their children's safety practices did not reflect actual behavior and further, that parental practices, rather than their beliefs about a particular safety practice, have a greater affect on their child's risk-taking behavior. The study population consisted of children in grades four and five and their parents/guardians. Participation in the cross-sectional study was voluntary and confidential anonymous questionnaires were used. In separate and independent surveys, children and parents were questioned in parallel about their knowledge, habits and attitudes toward bicycle helmet use and car safety practices. In the study, 731 students participated with 329 matched child-parent pairs. Ninety-five percent of the children own bicycles and 88% have helmets. Seventy percent of parents report their child always wears a helmet, while only 51% of children report always wearing one (p < 0.05). One-fifth of the children never wear a helmet, whereas parents think only 4% of their children never use one (p < 0.05). Parents report their children wear seat belts 92% of the time while 30% of children report not wearing one. Thirty-eight percent of children ride bicycles with their parents and wear their helmets more often than those who do not ride with their parents (p < 0.05). Parents who always wear a seat belt are more likely to have children who sit in the back seat and wear a seat belt (p < 0.05). Parents' perceptions of their children's safety practices may not be accurate and their actions do affect their children's. Injury prevention programs that target both parents and children may have a greater impact on reducing risk-taking behaviors than working with each group in isolation.

Feasibility of screening and intervention for alcohol problems among young adults in the ED.

This study evaluates the feasibility of screening and brief intervention (SBI) for alcohol problems among young adults (18-39 years) in a rural, university ED. Research staff screened a convenience sample of patients waiting for medical treatment with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), used motivational interviewing techniques to counsel screen-positive patients (AUDIT >/= 6) during the ED visit, and referred patients to off-site alcohol treatment as appropriate. Patients were interviewed again at 3 months. Eighty-seven percent of age-eligible drinkers (2,067 of 2,371) consented to participate. Forty-three percent (894 of 2,067) screened positive, of which 94% were counseled. Forty percent of those counseled set a goal to decrease or stop drinking and 4% were referred for further treatment. Median times for obtaining consent, screening, and intervention were 4, 4, and 14 minutes, respectively. Project staff reported that 3% of patients screened or counseled were uncooperative. Seventy percent of 519 patients who participated in follow-up interviews agreed the ED is a good place to help patients with alcohol problems. High rates of informed consent and acceptance of counseling confirmed this protocol's acceptability to patients and indicated patients were comfortable divulging alcohol-related risk behavior. The modest times required for the process enhanced acceptability to patients as well as ED staff. The high prevalence of alcohol problems and the broad acceptance of SBI in this sample provide evidence of the ED's promise as a venue for this clinical preventive service.

Screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems among college students treated in a university hospital emergency department.

The authors evaluated a protocol to screen and provide brief interventions for alcohol problems to college students treated at a university hospital emergency department (ED). Of 2,372 drinkers they approached, 87% gave informed consent. Of those, 54% screened positive for alcohol problems (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score < or = 6). One half to two thirds of the students who screened positive drank 2 to 3 times a week, drank 7 or more drinks per typical drinking day, or had experienced alcohol dependence symptoms within the past year. Ninety-six percent of screen-positive students accepted counseling during their ED visit. Three quarters of those questioned at 3-month follow-up reported that counseling had been helpful and that they had decreased their alcohol consumption. The prevalence of alcohol problems, high rates of informed consent and acceptance of counseling, and improved outcomes suggest that the ED is an appropriate venue for engaging students at high risk for alcohol problems.

Alcohol problems among young adult emergency department patients: making predictions using routine sociodemographic information.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims were to explore the process of identifying young adult Emergency Department (ED) patients at risk for alcohol problems, examine the sociodemographic predictors of patient alcohol problems, and determine differences between patients who screened positive and those who screened negative for alcohol problems. Implications for ED practice are discussed. METHOD: As part of a larger study, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test was administered to consenting patients ages 18 to 29. A score of greater than 5 (out of 40) was considered a positive screen for alcohol problems. Sociodemographic information was collected from a generic Individual Information Form. RESULTS: Approximately 48% (1855 of 3890) of patients screened positive for alcohol problems. Among screen-positive patients, 91% (1689) had scores that corresponded to mild to moderate alcohol problems. Compared with screen-negative patients, screen-positive patients were almost 3 times more likely to be men (odds ratio [OR] = 2.70); 2.5 times more likely to use tobacco (OR = 2.43); 2 times more likely to be single (OR = 2.03); and 1.5 times more likely to have some college education (OR = 1.41), be an 18- to 20-year-old adult (OR = 1.61), be a college student (OR = 1.60), be unemployed (OR = 1.39), and cohabitate with friends (OR = 1.19). Screen-positive patients also were more likely to have made at least one past attempt to change their drinking behavior (OR = 3.21). CONCLUSION: Routine patient information presented an accurate risk profile for alcohol problems among patients in this study. If ED-based health care professionals routinely screened patients for alcohol problems or could predict potential alcohol problems by using routinely collected information, then intervention or referral for additional services may increase.

Family presence during resuscitation: to see or not to see?

Encouraging family presence during resuscitation is controversial. Health care providers should use evidence-based practice to review this issue and be open to the idea of allowing the family to be present. The literature supports family presence during resuscitation and there is insufficient research in opposition to family presence. Health care institutions should revise their practices to coincide with the wants and needs of their patients and families. Nurses have an ethical obligation to intervene and create family presence programs.