Observational studyTraffic injury prevention2022
Child safety restraint patterns in Moldova.
Observational study in Traffic injury prevention, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The iCREATE registry: a model for strengthening injury surveillance in Republic of Moldova.Moldovan journal of health sciences = Revista de Stiinte ale Sanatatii din Moldova · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of child restraint system use in nine cities: a multiround cross-sectional observational study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Republic of Moldova has one of the European region's highest road traffic injury rates and also has an increase in motorization and exposure of children as vehicle passengers. This study describes child restraint use, and parents' knowledge and attitudes toward child restraint based on observations in Chisinau, the country's capital and largest city. The study aims to describe the use of child restraints and to compare data with existing standards of good practice.
methodsAn observational study on child safety restraint use was conducted in 2018. Observational sites included 22 early education institutions, where drivers (n = 611) and child passengers (n = 710) were observed. Observations were conducted as motor vehicles parked or pulled to a stop near the early education institutions and included a driver survey on knowledge and attitudes toward restraint legislation and child safety behavior.
resultsOf the 710 child passengers observed, 462 (65.1%) were appropriately restrained, 145 (20.4%) were seated in restraints inappropriate for the child and 103 (14.5%) of children were unrestrained. Younger children (0-3 year-old) were 7 times more likely to be properly restrained compared with children with ages between 4 and 6 (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.22). Two-thirds out of 609 observed drivers with full study data, N = 431 (70,8%), knew about the mandatory legislation on using child safety restraints in the Republic of Moldova. The drivers using child safety restraints responded that they used them because of their safety features, and the major reason for nonuse was high price/affordability.
conclusionThis study, the first to document child safety restraint use among children, indicates that much progress has been made, in that the majority of children are restrained and most drivers of children are aware of safety policies. However, progress can be made to increase knowledge and motivation to safely transport children, and to ensure safety seats are affordable and available. These data will be an important foundation on which to advocate for increased safety activities, child restraint policies, educational approaches in Moldova and to monitor progress over time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.