Suchergebnisse

The definition of the ideal numbers and distribution of human resources required for control of road traffic injury (RTI) is not as advanced as for other health problems. We can nonetheless identify functions that need to be addressed across the spectrum of injury control: surveillance; road safety (including infrastructure, vehicle design, and behaviour); and trauma care. Many low-cost strategies to improve these functions in low- or middle-income countries can be identified. For all these strategies, there is need for adequate institutional capacity, including funding, legal authority, and human resources. Several categories of human resources need to be developed: epidemiologists who can handle injury data, design surveillance systems, and undertake research; engineers and planners versed in safety aspects of road design, traffic flow, urban planning, and vehicle design; police and lawyers who understand the health impact of traffic law; clinicians who can develop cost-effective improvements in the entire system of trauma treatment; media experts to undertake effective behaviour change and social marketing; and economists to assist with cost-effectiveness evaluations. RTI control can be strengthened by enhancing such training in these disciplines, as well as encouraging retention of those who have the needed skills. Mechanisms to enhance collaboration between these different fields need to be promoted. Finally, the burden of RTI is borne disproportionately by the poor; in addition to technical issues, more profound equity issues must be addressed. This mandates that people from all professional backgrounds who work for RTI control should develop skills in advocacy and politics.

BACKGROUND: The use of non-standard motorcycle helmets has the potential to undermine multinational efforts aimed at reducing the burden of road traffic injuries associated with motorcycle crashes. However, little is known about the prevalence or factors associated with their use. METHODS: Collaborating institutions in nine low- and middle-income countries undertook cross-sectional surveys, markets surveys, and reviewed legislation and enforcement practices around non-standard helmets. FINDINGS: 5563 helmet-wearing motorcyclists were observed; 54% of the helmets did not appear to have a marker/sticker indicating that the helmet met required standards and interviewers judged that 49% of the helmets were likely to be non-standard helmets. 5088 (91%) of the motorcyclists agreed to be interviewed; those who had spent less than US$10 on their helmet were found to be at the greatest risk of wearing a non-standard helmet. Data were collected across 126 different retail outlets; across all countries, regardless of outlet type, standard helmets were generally 2-3 times more expensive than non-standard helmets. While seven of the nine countries had legislation prohibiting the use of non-standard helmets, only four had legislation prohibiting their manufacture or sale and only three had legislation prohibiting their import. Enforcement of any legislation appeared to be minimal. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that the widespread use of non-standard helmets in low- and middle-income countries may limit the potential gains of helmet use programmes. Strategies aimed at reducing the costs of standard helmets, combined with both legislation and enforcement, will be required to maximise the effects of existing campaigns.