2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2007.06.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of community-based programs to increase booster seat use

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Process evaluation can provide important findings with macrolevel program implications, such as the importance of the engagement of different community stakeholders [37, 38], client needs [11], assessment of the environment [39, 40], and challenges of the programs for a particular context [41]. Finally, process evaluation and outcome evaluation are strongly linked.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Process evaluation can provide important findings with macrolevel program implications, such as the importance of the engagement of different community stakeholders [37, 38], client needs [11], assessment of the environment [39, 40], and challenges of the programs for a particular context [41]. Finally, process evaluation and outcome evaluation are strongly linked.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A community booster seat initiative involving a fitting station, media and public services announcements, community education, and booster seat workshops did not increase booster seat use for 4 to 8 year-olds in low income communities (St Louis et al, 2008). However, when this initiative was combined with education events as local churches and a public blessing of the booster seats at a local church, booster seat use did significantly increase in the Hispanic community.…”
Section: Ethnicity Deprivation and Parent Road Safety Educationmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Intervention cost was incomplete in most studies, which did not account for both the cost of media and the cost of product distribution. Four studies 9,11,14,18,19 provided the grant amount with little other information. More than three quarters of the studies in this review that provided information about the source of funding were publicly financed.…”
Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The per capita cost of intervention to increase the use of booster seats could not be estimated because the one included study 19 provided only the total funded amount and did not provide an accurate estimate of the study population (Table 2). The intervention was effective only in one of two targeted communities.…”
Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning
confidence: 99%