Parental attitudes and behaviours concerning helmet use in childhood activities: Rural focus group interviews

Highlights

• There are unique barriers to helmet use for rural children.

• It is important to promote helmet use in other activities in addition to bicycling.

• A main reason that parents wore helmets was to be a role model.

• Rural parents make and enforce rules based on threat perception.

• Legislating helmet use in rural areas could increase helmet use.

Abstract

Previous research demonstrates the importance of parents in ensuring that their children practice proper helmet use. Parents encourage helmet use by setting an example when they wear helmets, as well as establishing rules that the children are expected to follow. Research in the area of helmet use predominantly focuses on bicycle helmets, but there are a number of childhood activities for which a helmet is required. The purpose of this research was to examine rural parents’ attitudes toward helmet use and investigate when, and for what activities, they require their children to wear helmets. Rural parents were selected as there is evidence that helmet use is less frequent among children in rural settings.

Expanding on the literature, an exploratory qualitative methodology was used to gather data. Eight focus groups were held in rural Saskatchewan to explore what influences parents’ decisions to wear helmets themselves, and when and why they enforce helmet rules with their children. A thematic analysis was subsequently conducted on the data.

The results suggest that parents recognize that their rules and their example influence their children. Participants mentioned being consistent, establishing rules and using positive reinforcement as ways to encourage helmet use among their children. Helmet costs and lack of awareness of helmet necessity in particular activities were barriers to helmet use. Specific barriers to helmet use in rural areas included the difficulty in finding proper helmets, the lack of exposure to helmet promotion initiatives, and the perception that activities in rural areas were safer than in the city. Parents tended to make their own helmet decisions based on personal experience and threat perception of the activity. This reasoning was the basis for when and why they established helmet rules.

It is important to raise awareness of the risks of head injury and the benefits of wearing a helmet in other activities besides bicycling. More effort is needed to reach rural populations with information and opportunities to access appropriate and affordable helmets. Legislating mandatory helmet use could be useful in promoting helmet use in adults and children. Alternatively, the use of incentives for children wearing helmets could also serve as a reinforcement mechanism to increase use. A synthesis of the data gathered suggests that a theoretical approach based on increasing predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors for helmet use may be useful in future interventions.

Introduction

The prospect of head and brain injury varies depending on the nature of the sporting activity, age of the participant, equipment being worn, and the intensity of play. Children, in particular, are at an increased risk of suffering head injuries due to physiological factors such as large head size compared to body mass (McKee and Brady, 2004), strength, motor skill deficits, and cognitive immaturity (Levine et al., 2001). Further, children often lack the experience (Hagel et al., 2004) and judgment (Finn and MacDonlad, 2010) that adults may possess. The elevated risk of head injury in children is particularly disconcerting, as the younger developing brain is susceptible to lasting damage (Ponsford et al., 1999, Zimmerman and Bilaniuk, 1994).

Notwithstanding the body of evidence pertaining to the efficacy of helmets in preventing serious head injury, usage is still not universal. Low compliance with helmet recommendations for children has been reported for bicycles (Ehrlich et al., 2001, Finnoff et al., 2001), ATVs (Warda et al., 1998), toboggans (Juang et al., 2010, Noffsinger et al., 2008, Ortega et al., 2005), snowmobiles (DeCou et al., 2003, Nayci et al., 2006), in skiing and snowboarding (Cusimano and Kwok, 2010) horseback riding (Holland et al., 2001), and wheeled activities (Brudvik, 2006, Forjuoh et al., 2002, Konkin et al., 2006). The research is unequivocal that increasing helmet use among children is an important objective in a number of different activities.

Whether a child wears a helmet or not is largely influenced by the precedent that is set by the parents. For example, Miller et al. (1996) found that children whose parents enforced strict rules regarding bicycle helmet use reported wearing a helmet most or all of the time compared with children who either had a partial rule or no rule at all. Further, adults influence children's behavior not only through setting rules, but also through providing parental encouragement and role modeling of helmet use (Khambalia et al., 2005). Apart from bicycle helmets, however, little is understood about how parents’ rules, attitudes, and behavior impact their children's helmet use.

Despite good intentions, there are often barriers that impede parents from enacting and enforcing helmet rules. Reported barriers to helmet use include inhibitive costs, discomfort, lack of belief in the necessity, and an unpopular image of helmets among children and adolescents (Finch, 1996; Finnoff et al., 2001). Miller et al. (1996) reported that the most common reasons parents gave for lack of bicycle helmet ownership by children ages 5–14 were “never thought about purchasing” a helmet (35%), “never got around to purchasing” a helmet (29%), “child wouldn’t wear it anyway” (26%), and the helmet was “too expensive” (16%).

Previous research on helmet usage has been predominantly focused in urban settings. There has been very little investigation of rural helmet behaviors, although urban and rural communities have different demographic characteristics and different injury patterns (Ehrlich et al., 2001). One of the first studies to make this comparison was conducted in the province of Manitoba and compared patterns of bicycle helmet usage between urban and rural children (Harlos et al., 1999). The findings suggested that helmet usage contrasted in that rural children were less likely to wear a helmet than urban children. The authors concluded that further research into rural helmet wearing practices and attitudes is warranted and that it would be helpful to examine attitudes toward helmet use as well as the barriers and access to helmet use through focus group discussions.

Following the recommendation of Harlos et al. (1999) the current study expands on past research by qualitatively exploring parental attitudes, behaviors and rule enforcement of rural parents. However, the present study was not limited bicycle helmet use alone. Rather, the qualitative nature of the inquiry allowed parents to compare their perceptions of helmet use across a number of childhood activities in which their children participate.