METHOD: A naturalistic exploratory un-obstructive observational approach was used in assessing this phenomenon. The relationship between motorcyclists' behaviors and motorcyclists' observed demographic characteristics, the locality of the intersection, time of the week and presence of pillion passengers were analyzed. Chi-Square test of independence was used to establish the statistically significant relationships between dependent and independent variables.
RESULTS: In all, 2,225 motorcyclists and 744 pillion passengers were observed. The results revealed that 33.1% of the motorcyclists ran a red light with 45.4% not using a helmet. Red-light running at signalized intersections was significantly linked to the locality of the intersection, time of the week, and helmet use. The helmet use was low and significantly associated with the presence of a pillion passenger and whether the pillion passenger used a helmet or not.
CONCLUSION: Red-light running is influenced by locality of intersection, time of the week and helmet use. Efforts to reduce red-light running and improve helmet use should involve road safety education, awareness creation, and enforcement of traffic laws by the officials of the National Road Safety Authority and Motor Transport and Traffic Department of the Ghana Police Service. City managers in other low and middle-income countries can use the findings in the study to inform policy.
METHODS: The study design was a prospective cross-sectional study. The participants involved injured motorcyclists who were admitted in five selected hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Participants who sustained head injury were selected as the cases while those with injury below the neck (IBN) were selected as the controls. Questionnaire comprising motorcyclist, vehicle, helmet and crash factors was examined. Diagnoses of injuries were obtained from the participants' medical records.
RESULTS: The total subjects with head injuries were 404 while those with IBN were 235. Majority of the cases (76.2%) and controls (80.4%) wore the half-head and open-face helmets, followed by the tropical helmets (5.4% and 6.0% of the cases and controls, respectively). Full-face helmets were used by 1.2% of the cases and 4.7% of the controls. 5.7% of the cases and 6.0% of the controls did not wear a helmet. 32.7% of the cases and 77.4% of the controls had their helmets fixed. Motorcyclists with ejected helmets were five times as likely to sustain head injury [adjusted odds ratio, AOR 5.73 (95% CI 3.38-9.73)] and four times as likely to sustain severe head injury [AOR of 4.83 (95% CI 2.76-8.45)]. The half head and open face helmets had AOR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.10-0.56) for severe head injury when compared to motorcyclists who did not wear a helmet.
CONCLUSION: Helmet fixation is more effective than helmet type in providing protection to the motorcyclists.
METHODS: Non-inferiority randomized, clinical trial involving patients presenting with acute respiratory failure conducted in the ED of a local hospital. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either hCPAP or fCPAP as per the trial protocol. The primary endpoint was respiratory rate reduction. Secondary endpoints included discomfort, improvement in Dyspnea and Likert scales, heart rate reduction, arterial blood oxygenation, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), dryness of mucosa and intubation rate.
RESULTS: 224 patients were included and randomized (113 patients to hCPAP, 111 to fCPAP). Both techniques reduced respiratory rate (hCPAP: from 33.56 ± 3.07 to 25.43 ± 3.11 bpm and fCPAP: from 33.46 ± 3.35 to 27.01 ± 3.19 bpm), heart rate (hCPAP: from 114.76 ± 15.5 to 96.17 ± 16.50 bpm and fCPAP: from 115.07 ± 14.13 to 101.19 ± 16.92 bpm), and improved dyspnea measured by both the Visual Analogue Scale (hCPAP: from 16.36 ± 12.13 to 83.72 ± 12.91 and fCPAP: from 16.01 ± 11.76 to 76.62 ± 13.91) and the Likert scale. Both CPAP techniques improved arterial oxygenation (PaO2 from 67.72 ± 8.06 mmHg to 166.38 ± 30.17 mmHg in hCPAP and 68.99 ± 7.68 mmHg to 184.49 ± 36.38 mmHg in fCPAP) and the PaO2:FiO2 (Partial pressure of arterial oxygen: Fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio from 113.6 ± 13.4 to 273.4 ± 49.5 in hCPAP and 115.0 ± 12.9 to 307.7 ± 60.9 in fCPAP. The intubation rate was lower with hCPAP (4.4% for hCPAP versus 18% for fCPAP, absolute difference -13.6%, p = 0.003). Discomfort and dryness of mucosa were also lower with hCPAP.
CONCLUSION: In patients presenting to the ED with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema or decompensated COPD, hCPAP was non-inferior to fCPAP and resulted in greater comfort levels and lower intubation rate.