State-Level Helmet Use Laws, Helmet Use, and Head Injuries in EMS Patients Involved in Motorcycle Collisions.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Prehospital Emergency Care Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1080/10903127.2025.2450280
Jane M Hayes, Rebecca E Cash, Lydia Buzzard, Alyssa M Green, Lori L Boland, Morgan K Anderson
{"title":"State-Level Helmet Use Laws, Helmet Use, and Head Injuries in EMS Patients Involved in Motorcycle Collisions.","authors":"Jane M Hayes, Rebecca E Cash, Lydia Buzzard, Alyssa M Green, Lori L Boland, Morgan K Anderson","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2025.2450280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Motorcycle helmets save lives and reduce serious injury after motorcycle collisions (MCC). In 2022, 18 states had laws requiring helmet use by motorcyclists aged ≥21 years. Our objective was to compare helmet use and head trauma in emergency medical services (EMS) patients involved in MCC in states with and without helmet use laws.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an analysis of the 2022 ImageTrend Collaborate national EMS dataset. We included 9-1-1 responses where the patient was a motorcyclist in a transport accident (ICD-10 V20-V29) and aged ≥21 years. Patient demographics, incident urbanicity, helmet use, presence of state helmet use law, patient disposition, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, and trauma team activations were examined. Our primary outcome of interest was EMS documentation of helmet use (yes/no). Our secondary outcome was the presence of a head injury. We examined EMS-documented head injury, defined using clinician impressions and chief complaint anatomical location. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in proportions, and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate odds of moderate/severe head injury adjusted for covariates of interest.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15,891 patient encounters were included, 10,738 (67.6%) occurred in states without helmet use laws. States without helmet use laws had higher proportions of unhelmeted patients (56.8% vs 24.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), encounters in non-metro/rural areas (19.7% vs 13.3%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and GCS-defined moderate/severe head injuries (4.6% vs 2.3%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In a multivariable model that included 10-yr age groups, sex, race, urbanicity, and documented helmet use, the adjusted odds of moderate/severe head injury were lower for females (0.47, 95%CI, 0.35-0.65) and Black patients (0.47, 95%CI 0.32-0.70), and were higher for incidents in nonmetro/rural areas (1.58, 95%CI 1.28-1.95) and when EMS had not documented helmet use (3.17, 95%CI 2.56-3.92).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this retrospective cross-sectional study, a higher proportion of patients involved in MCCs in states without helmet laws were not wearing helmets at the time of injury, and unhelemted patients had increased likelihood of sustaining a head injury. EMS agencies in states without helmet laws should prepare their systems and clinicians for an increased incidence of head injuries after MCCs.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2025.2450280","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Motorcycle helmets save lives and reduce serious injury after motorcycle collisions (MCC). In 2022, 18 states had laws requiring helmet use by motorcyclists aged ≥21 years. Our objective was to compare helmet use and head trauma in emergency medical services (EMS) patients involved in MCC in states with and without helmet use laws.

Methods: We conducted an analysis of the 2022 ImageTrend Collaborate national EMS dataset. We included 9-1-1 responses where the patient was a motorcyclist in a transport accident (ICD-10 V20-V29) and aged ≥21 years. Patient demographics, incident urbanicity, helmet use, presence of state helmet use law, patient disposition, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, and trauma team activations were examined. Our primary outcome of interest was EMS documentation of helmet use (yes/no). Our secondary outcome was the presence of a head injury. We examined EMS-documented head injury, defined using clinician impressions and chief complaint anatomical location. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in proportions, and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate odds of moderate/severe head injury adjusted for covariates of interest.

Results: A total of 15,891 patient encounters were included, 10,738 (67.6%) occurred in states without helmet use laws. States without helmet use laws had higher proportions of unhelmeted patients (56.8% vs 24.2%, p < 0.001), encounters in non-metro/rural areas (19.7% vs 13.3%, p < 0.001), and GCS-defined moderate/severe head injuries (4.6% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001). In a multivariable model that included 10-yr age groups, sex, race, urbanicity, and documented helmet use, the adjusted odds of moderate/severe head injury were lower for females (0.47, 95%CI, 0.35-0.65) and Black patients (0.47, 95%CI 0.32-0.70), and were higher for incidents in nonmetro/rural areas (1.58, 95%CI 1.28-1.95) and when EMS had not documented helmet use (3.17, 95%CI 2.56-3.92).

Conclusions: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, a higher proportion of patients involved in MCCs in states without helmet laws were not wearing helmets at the time of injury, and unhelemted patients had increased likelihood of sustaining a head injury. EMS agencies in states without helmet laws should prepare their systems and clinicians for an increased incidence of head injuries after MCCs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
州一级头盔使用法律,头盔使用,和头部损伤急诊病人参与摩托车碰撞。
目的:摩托车头盔可以挽救生命,减少摩托车碰撞后的严重伤害。2022年,18个州有法律要求年满21岁的摩托车手佩戴头盔。我们的目的是比较在有和没有头盔使用法律的州,涉及MCC的紧急医疗服务(EMS)患者的头盔使用和头部创伤。方法:我们对2022年ImageTrend协作国家EMS数据集进行了分析。我们纳入了911响应,患者是交通事故中的摩托车手(ICD-10 V20-V29),年龄≥21岁。检查了患者人口统计、事件城市化、头盔使用、州头盔使用法的存在、患者处置、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分和创伤小组的激活情况。我们感兴趣的主要结果是头盔使用的EMS文件(是/否)。我们的次要结局是出现头部损伤。我们检查了ems记录的头部损伤,使用临床医生印象和主诉解剖位置来定义。使用卡方检验来评估比例差异,并使用多变量logistic回归模型来估计经相关协变量调整后的中度/重度头部损伤的几率。结果:共纳入15891例患者遭遇,10738例(67.6%)发生在没有头盔使用法律的州。没有头盔使用法的州未戴头盔的患者比例更高(56.8% vs 24.2%)。结论:在这项回顾性横断面研究中,在没有头盔法的州,受伤时未戴头盔的mcc患者比例更高,未戴头盔的患者持续头部损伤的可能性增加。没有头盔法律的州的紧急医疗服务机构应该为mcc后头部受伤发生率增加的系统和临床医生做好准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
期刊最新文献
Social Determinants of Health and Emergency Medical Services: A Scoping Review. Chest Compressions Synchronized to Native Cardiac Contractions are More Effective than Unsynchronized Compressions for Improving Coronary Perfusion Pressure in a Novel Pseudo-PEA Swine Model. Paramedic-administered fibrinolysis in older patients with prehospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Prehospital Whole Blood Administration Not Associated with Increased Transfusion Reactions: The Experience of a Metropolitan EMS Agency. Non-Invasive Ventilation as a Pre-Oxygenation Strategy During In-Flight Rapid Sequence Intubation: A Case Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1