A risky "treat": exploring parental perceptions of the barriers to seating their children in the rear seats of passenger vehicles
Lennon, Alexia J. (2007) A risky "treat": exploring parental perceptions of the barriers to seating their children in the rear seats of passenger vehicles. Injury Prevention, 13(2), pp. 105-109.
Background: Sitting in the rear seat of a vehicle reduces children's risk of injury or death by 35% or more in the event of a crash, compared to sitting in the front. As road trauma is a leading cause of child morbidity and mortality in highly motorised nations, even in countries where restraint use is high, encouraging parents to place children in the rear seats of vehicles offers a low-cost avenue to improving children's overall health. However, we know little about the factors that affect parents' decisions about seating position. Objective: To explore parental perceptions of barriers to placing their children in the rear seat of passenger vehicles whenever possible. Design and subjects: Focus group discussions were held with urban parent-drivers to elicit their concerns about children's car safety and barriers to rear seat use. Results: Most parents had a rule that children should sit in the rear seat. Parents said they relaxed these rules for a variety of reasons including: social pressure; perceptions of the trip as short; because children regard sitting in the front seat as a "treat". Parenting style, child cooperativeness, social pressure and inability to justify the risk of injury were identified as barriers to rear seat travel. . Conclusions: Effective interventions to increase the proportion of children travelling in the rear seat should address parents' experiences of pressure to relax seating rules and risk perception as well as provide strategies that support sound parental safety decisions.
Impact and interest:
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
Repository Staff Only: item control page