宜兴市2010—2012年机动车驾乘人员安全带佩戴情况调查

目的了解宜兴市2010—2012年机动车驾乘人员安全带佩戴情况。方法采用分层整群随机抽样方法,按照道路的不同类型选取宜兴市内4个观察点,在不同时间段对出租车、小轿车（8座以内）、厢式小货车和皮卡4种车型的司机和前排乘车人安全带的佩戴情况进行观察。结果2010—2012年期间共观察宜兴市机动车驾驶员47311人和前排乘客15505人,安全带佩戴率分别为53．39％和10．83％。对性别、时间段、车型等因素进行匹配后,2010—2012年的驾驶员安全带佩戴率之间具有差异,且呈上升趋势;同时,前排乘客不佩戴安全带与驾驶员不佩戴安全带有关（OR=5．40,P〈0．001）。结论机动车驾驶员和前排乘车安全带佩戴率逐年上升,安全意识逐渐加强,但实际佩戴率还较低,需加强管理。     

宜兴市2010-2012年机动车驾乘人员安全带佩戴情况调查

目的了解宜兴市2010-2012年机动车驾乘人员安全带佩戴情况。方法采用分层整群随机抽样方法,按照道路的不同类型选取宜兴市内4个观察点,在不同时间段对出租车、小轿车（8座以内）、厢式小货车和皮卡4种车型的司机和前排乘车人安全带的佩戴情况进行观察。结果 2010-2012年期间共观察宜兴市机动车驾驶员47 311人和前排乘客15 505人,安全带佩戴率分别为53.39%和10.83%。对性别、时间段、车型等因素进行匹配后,2010-2012年的驾驶员安全带佩戴率之间具有差异,且呈上升趋势;同时,前排乘客不佩戴安全带与驾驶员不佩戴安全带有关（OR=5.40,P<0.001）。结论机动车驾驶员和前排乘车安全带佩戴率逐年上升,安全意识逐渐加强,但实际佩戴率还较低,需加强管理。     

南京市2005-2007年机动车驾乘人员安全带佩戴情况调查

目的 调查道路安全法或条例出台3年后南京市机动车驾乘人员安全佩戴情况.方法 在市区内选取4个观察点,在不同时间段对出租车、小轿车(8座以内)、厢式小货车和"皮卡"4种车型的司机和前排乘车人安全带的佩戴情况进行观察.结果 2005-2007年共观察35 256辆车辆和司机,以及15 772名前排乘车人.其中司机安全带佩戴率为49.9%,不佩戴率和假戴率分别为44.1%和4.6%;乘车人安全带佩戴率为9.1%,不佩戴率90.9%.在调整了性别、车型等因素后,3年来无论是司机还是前排乘车人安全带佩戴率均呈现下降趋势(P<0.01),司机不佩戴安全带会增加前排乘车人不佩戴的风险(OR=8.10,P<0.01).结论 现有法律或条例在司机和乘牟人佩戴安全带方面并无具体的规定,妨碍了法律或条例的有效执行.     

宜兴市2010年机动车驾乘人员安全带佩戴现况及态度调查

目的 了解宜兴市驾乘人员安全带佩戴现况及态度.方法 在市区内选取4个观察点,在不同的时间段对出租车、小轿车、面包车和“皮卡”4种车型的司机和前排乘车人安全带的佩戴情况进行观察.同一时期对驾驶人员进行有关安全带佩戴态度问卷调查.结果 共观察12 473辆车辆和司机以及4 182名前排乘车人.其中司机安全带佩戴率为19.9％;乘车人安全带佩戴率为3.5％.问卷调查了1 073名驾乘人员,选择经常佩戴的51.7％,有时佩戴的25.4％,不佩戴22.9％;不佩戴的原因最多的是感到束缚、感到不舒服.认为最有效的措施是重金处罚、交通事故报道佩戴安全带者幸免于难.在调整了性别、车型等因素后,司机不佩戴安全带会增加前排乘车人不佩戴的风险(OR=8.26,P＜0.001).结论 目前该市驾乘人员司机和前排乘车人安全带的佩戴意识达到一定水平,但实际佩戴率还比较低,亟需加强管理.     

宜兴市2009年机动车驾乘人员安全带佩戴情况调查

目的调查道路安全法规或条例出台5年后的2009年宜兴市机动车驾乘人员安全带佩戴情况及态度。方法在市区内选取4个观察点,在不同的时间段对出租车、小轿车、面包车和"皮卡"4种车型的司机和前排乘车人安全带的佩戴情况进行观察。结果 2009年共观察1816辆车辆和司机,以及661名前排乘车人。其中司机安全带佩戴率为31.1%,不佩戴率为68.9%;乘车人安全带佩戴率为6.1%,不佩戴率为93.9%。在调整了性别、车型等因素后,司机不佩戴安全带会增加前排乘车人不佩戴的风险(OR=2.19,P0.05)。调查了866名驾乘人员的认知态度,选择经常佩戴的占83.4%,有时佩戴的占10.5%,不佩戴的占6.2%;不佩戴的原因最多的是感到不舒服。认为最有效的措施是重金处罚和加强佩戴安全带者幸免于难的交通事故报道。结论目前该市驾乘人员司机和前排乘车人安全带的佩戴意识达到一定水平,但实际佩戴率还比较低,亟需加强管理。     

合肥市出租车司乘人员安全带佩戴状况调查

目的 调查安徽省合肥市出租车司乘人员安全带的佩戴情况。方法 在合肥市区分别选择5个主干道和5个支路路段观察点,每个观察点于工作日、双休日各观察1d。自07:00～19:00连续12h的每1h时间段内,累计观察前排有乘客乘坐的出租车50车次,共观察12000车次。结果 合肥市出租车司机安全带正确、不正确佩戴率及未佩戴率分别为44.2%,3.4%,52.4%;前排乘客安全带的正确佩戴率及未佩戴率分别为0.5%和99.5%。司机安全带正确佩戴率工作日高于双休日,且自07:00～19:00呈增高-降低-增高-降低的变化趋势;上午10～11点、下午4～5点时间段较高,中午1点最低;主干道和支路路段上正确佩戴率差异无统计学意义;女司机正确佩戴率高于男司机。结论 合肥市出租车司乘人员安全带的佩戴率较低,应结合司机佩戴安全带的时间变化规律加强交通监管力度,同时要充分重视对前排乘客安全带使用的干预。     

2010年我国成人道路交通伤害行为危险因素流行特点

目的了解我国不同成年人群道路交通伤害主要行为危险因素的流行特点。方法2010年在我国162个监测点,采用多阶段分层整群随机抽样,调查了98658名18岁及以上居民,通过面对面问卷调查收集道路交通伤害相关行为危险因素信息。对样本进行复杂加权后,分析不同成年人群头盔佩戴、安全带佩戴、酒后驾驶、疲劳驾驶和无证驾驶情况。结果2010年我国成人摩托车驾乘人员中,头盔经常佩戴率为20．03％（95％CI：16．98％～23．08％）,不佩戴率为59．52％（95％CI：55．80％～63．25％）,男性佩戴情况好于女性（P〈0．001）。机动车驾驶员安全带经常佩戴率为36．74％（95％CI：33．04％～40．45％）,不佩戴率为37．22％（95％CI：33．81％～40．62％）,女性佩戴情况好于男性（P=0．028）。机动车驾驶员酒后驾驶率为10．89％（95％CI：9．65％～12．13％）,45～54岁组驾驶员酒后驾驶率最高（P=0．010）。机动车驾驶员疲劳驾驶率为19．71％（95％CI：18．06％～21．37％）,35～44岁年龄组驾驶员疲劳驾驶率最高（P=0．003）。机动车驾驶员无证驾驶率为24．68％（95％CI：22．13％～27．23％）,65岁及以上年龄组驾驶员无证驾驶率最高（P〈0．001）。结论中国成年人道路交通危险行为问题较为严重。     

中国4城市中学教职工吸烟现状调查

目的开展教职工吸烟现状调查，为在今后教师群体中实施控烟工作提供科学依据。方法在濮阳、上海、天津和珠海4个城市的城乡随机选取中学各25所，对校内教职工进行问卷调查。结果教职工总吸烟率濮阳男性45．4％，女性1．0％；上海男性54．1％，女性3．4％；天津男性44．9％，女性2．8％；珠海男性47．6％，女性3．1％。男性教职工总吸烟率高于女性，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．001）。不同年龄教职工总吸烟率不同，〈24岁和25～29岁组分别低于60岁～年龄组．差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。不同职位教职工总吸烟率不同，学校领导高于其他职员，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。不同年龄组教职工戒烟率不同，50-59岁和60岁～年龄组分别高于〈24岁组，差异有统汁学意义（P〈0．05）。结论4城市教职工吸烟率均低于普通人群，戒烟率较高。教师作为教育群体，其知识层次和素质优于一般人群，在行为上有一定的自律意识。     

广州市大型购物中心公共厕所使用者卫生行为调查

目的了解广州市大型购物中心的公共厕所使用者的卫生行为、公厕洗手配套设施的情况。方法2008年4月26—27日,选取广州市3个大型购物中心共60间公厕,采用问卷调查使用者对公厕设施和卫生状况的评价,观察公厕洗手配套设施的情况。结果共调查419名公厕使用者,其中男性210人、女性209人。洗手率为84．2％,女性洗手率（89．5％）高于男性（78．8％）（P〈0．01）。洗手时间均数为5．0S。不洗手原因主要包括没习惯、水龙头问题、赶时间、去其他地方洗等等。公厕使用者不良习惯有便后不冲水、厕所内抽烟、吐痰、乱丢垃圾等,其发生率分别为29．4％、8．8％、1．0％和1．4％。结论公共厕所使用者洗手率较高。为进一步提高洗手率,还需要完善水龙头等洗手配套设施及增加水龙头数量。便后不冲水、抽烟等公厕不文明行为仍较普遍。需要进一步加强行为教育干预,提高公民的道德修养及卫生意识。     

沈阳市31家工厂职工肺癌的流行病学调查研究

目的：对沈阳市1979－1994年31家工厂职工肺癌的流行病学调查研究，结果：肺癌的发病率在19．4／10万＝52．9／10万之间，1990年最高（52．9／10万）；男性高于女性；肺癌死亡率，男性在22．9／10万－58．9／10万之间，1990年最高（58．9／10万）；女性在7．6／10万－28．7／10万之间，1987年最高（28．7／10万）；男性高于女性。肺癌，35，8，10年的存活率分别为8．3％，5．3％，3．2％，1．3％，中心型肺癌居3种部位之首位（67．0％），男性鳞癌居4种组织类型的首位（50．9％），女性腺癌居4种组织类型的首位（67．9％），55－64岁为鳞癌（44．5％），腺癌（47．2％），小细胞癌（50．0％）和大细胞癌（35．7％）的高发病年龄组。     

Evidence-based policy on road safety: the effect of the demerit points system on seat belt use and health outcomes

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a demerit points system, introduced in Italy in July 2003, on the prevalence of seat belt use (intermediate outcome) and the number of road traffic deaths and injuries (health outcomes). DESIGN: Pre- and post-intervention regional observational study for seat belt investigation (April 2003, October 2004); national time-series analysis of road traffic deaths and injuries between 1999 and 2004 for health outcomes. SETTING: Veneto region, Italy. PARTICIPANTS: 19,551 drivers, 19,057 front passengers and 8,123 rear passengers estimated to be aged over 11 years were included in the investigation into seat belt use. 38,154 fatalities and 1,938,550 injured subjects were examined for the time-series analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Demerit points system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportions of drivers and front and rear passengers observed to be using seat belts before and after the intervention; estimates of lives and injuries saved through the implementation of a penalty points system. RESULTS: The demerit points system was followed by an increase in observed seat belt use of 51.8% (95% confidence interval 48.7% to 54.9%) among drivers, of 42.3% (95% confidence interval 39.2% to 45.5%) among front passengers and of 120.7% (95% confidence interval 99.4% to 144.3%) among rear passengers. It is estimated that 1,545 (95% confidence interval 1387 to 1703; p<0.0001) deaths and 91,772 (95% confidence interval 67,762 to 115,783; p<0.0001) injuries were prevented in the 18 months after the introduction of the legislation, i.e. an 18% reduction (1545/8570) in fatalities and a 19% reduction (91,772/473,048) in injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The demerit points system is effective both in encouraging drivers and passengers to adhere to the law and in terms of health outcomes, substantially contributing to road safety.     

The use of seat belts on British motorways.

Evidence demonstrating the advantages of seat belts in improving safety of road travel is overwhelming and has resulted in government legislation. This study was performed to investigate compliance with this legislation by fast-moving traffic on British motorways, for which no previous data exists. Analysis of seat belt use by 2564 travellers in 1526 cars in October 1992 revealed the following rates of use: drivers 98%; front passengers 96%; rear seat passengers with available belts 53%. The overall low rate of rear seat restraint use was seen in all age groups except babies. When the study was repeated 8 months later, the rates of restraint amongst 3910 travellers in 1881 cars had not increased. In view of the continuing heavy death toll on British motorways and roads, there is an obvious need for measures to improve rear seat belt use. This would be most appropriately achieved by both enforcing and publicizing the current legislation.     

Safety belt and mobile phone usage in vehicles in Barcelona (Spain)

Objectives

To describe the prevalence and correlates of safety belt and mobile phone usage in vehicles in the city of Barcelona (Spain).

Methods

We performed a study using direct observation with a cross-sectional design. We selected 2,442 private cars, commercial vehicles, and taxis from all districts of Barcelona.

Results

The prevalence of people not wearing safety belt was 10.5% among drivers, 4.6% among front seat passengers, and 32.2% among some of the rear passengers. It was higher among the passengers than among the drivers, regardless of the type of the vehicle. The prevalence of mobile phone usage while driving during a moment of the trip was 3.8%.

Conclusion

Our study shows noticeably high prevalence of people not wearing safety belt in the rear seats. Moreover, four out of one hundred drivers still use the mobile phone while driving during a moment of the trip.     

Risk-taking behaviors and other correlates of seat belt use among university students

A cross-sectional study of 1,077 students enrolled in a large, comprehensive Midwestern university in the United States was conducted to elicit a better understanding of the correlates of seat belt use. Examined were seven risk-taking behaviors, health-promoting behavior, and age, sex, and race. Overall, five of the seven risk-taking behaviors, including cigarette smoking status, drinking status, amount of alcohol consumed, drug use, and drinking and driving were inversely correlated with the frequency of seat belt use (P = 0.00). Health-promoting behavior, as measured by a 48-item index, was positively associated with seat belt use (r = 0.21; P = 0.00). Females and whites were more likely to wear seat belts than males or nonwhites, respectively. There was no significant difference in seat belt use by age. Regression analysis on all 11 variables examined revealed that drug use, smoking status, and sex were significant predictors of seat belt use. Overall, the 11 variables explained 13.3% of the variance in seat belt use. Stepwise regression showed that slightly more than half of the explained variance could be attributed to amount of alcohol consumed and drug use (R2 = 0.071; P = 0.00).     

Seat belt use among American Indians/Alaska Natives and non-Hispanic whites

BACKGROUND: Accidents (including motor vehicle injuries) are a leading cause of death among American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/AN). The purpose of this study was to examine geographic variation and the existence of a seat belt law on seat belt use among AI/AN and non-Hispanic whites (NHW). METHODS: Self-reported seat belt behavior data from the 1997 and 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were analyzed in 2006-2007 and were restricted to AI/AN (n=4,310 for 2002, and n=1,758 for 1997) and NHW (n=193,617 for 2002, and n=108,551 for 1997) aged 18 years and older. RESULTS: Seat belt non-use varied significantly across geographic regions for both AI/AN and NHW. For example, AI/AN living in the Northern Plains (odds ratio [OR]=12.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]=6.5-23.7) and Alaska (OR=10.3, 95%CI=5.3-19.9) had significantly higher seat belt non-use compared to AI/AN living in the West. In addition, compared to those residing in urban areas, those living in rural areas were 60% more likely in NHW and 2.6 times more likely in AI/AN not to wear a seat belt. Both AI/AN and NHW living in states without primary seat belt laws were approximately twice as likely to report seat belt non-use in 2002 as those living in states with primary laws. In states with primary laws enacted between 1997 and 2002, AI/AN experienced greater decline in seat belt non-use than NHW. CONCLUSIONS: Seat belt use among AI/AN and NHW varied significantly by region and urban-rural residency in 2002. Primary seat belt laws appear to help reduce regional and racial disparities in seat belt non-use.