a CHEAR Center, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , Michigan.
b University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute , Ann Arbor , Michigan.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2019;20(3):282-288. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1568421. Epub 2019 Apr 15.
In this study, we assessed the number of child passenger safety technicians (CPSTs) in Michigan over 4 years and characterized the CPST workforce in 2015 to identify factors associated with high productivity and longevity in the field. We determined the number of CPSTs and those newly certified using lists from the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) from 2012 to 2015. We conducted a statewide survey of Michigan CPSTs in October 2015. Analyses were conducted in 2016. The survey assessed demographic characteristics, reasons to enter the field and maintain certification, and motivations to conduct seat checks. We used CPST-reported time devoted to seat checks and average number of seats checked per month to create a composite "activity level" variable. We examined activity levels across several characteristics. The number of CPSTs ranged from 941 to 980 over the study period, with approximately 200 new certifications annually. In 2015, surveys were started by 496 of 962 eligible CPSTs and 427 submitted complete responses. CPST-instructors had a higher response rate than CPSTs in general (89 vs. 49%, < .0001). The majority of respondents were women (71%) and self-identified as white (88%). More than one third were 35-44 years old. Just 7% were comfortable checking seats using a language other than English. "Personal reasons" were most often cited motivation for becoming a CPST and maintaining certification. Natural fit/job enhancement were more common reasons to maintain certification than become a CPST. Time and distance had the greatest influence on seat check participation. Perceived need, appointments vs. drop-in, and employer factors were very influential for 10-15% of CPSTs. Few CPSTs considered free food and payments/giveaways very influential. About 40% of respondents were considered high-activity (>24 seats checked/year), one third medium-activity (5 to 24 seats checked/year), and one quarter low-activity (<5 seats checked/year). High-activity CPSTs most commonly reported both being paid and volunteering their time to check seats, worked with a Safe Kids coalition, worked in law enforcement or social services, and had recertified at least once. Motivation to participate in seat checks did not vary with activity level. Understanding the demographic characteristics and motivations of CPSTs can help Michigan OHSP recruit and retain a workforce dedicated to increasing the safety of child passengers. Agencies hosting seat checks can use these results to align the strategies they employ to incentivize CPSTs to serve in their communities with the factors that have the greatest influence on CPST participation.
在这项研究中,我们评估了密歇根州 4 年来的儿童乘客安全技术员 (CPST) 人数,并对 2015 年的 CPST 劳动力进行了特征描述,以确定该领域高生产力和高寿命的相关因素。我们使用密歇根州高速公路安全规划办公室 (OHSP) 的清单,确定了 CPST 人数和新认证人数。2015 年 10 月,我们对密歇根州的 CPST 进行了全州范围的调查。分析于 2016 年进行。该调查评估了人口统计学特征、进入该领域和保持认证的原因以及进行座椅检查的动机。我们使用 CPST 报告的座椅检查时间和每月平均检查的座椅数量创建了一个综合的“活动水平”变量。我们检查了几个特征的活动水平。在研究期间,CPST 人数从 941 人到 980 人不等,每年约有 200 人获得新认证。2015 年,由 962 名符合条件的 CPST 中的 496 名开始了调查,427 名提交了完整的答复。CPST 指导员的回复率高于一般 CPST(89%对 49%,<.0001)。大多数受访者是女性(71%),自认为是白人(88%)。超过三分之一的人年龄在 35-44 岁之间。只有 7%的人能够舒适地使用英语以外的语言检查座椅。“个人原因”是成为 CPST 和保持认证的最常见动机。自然契合/工作增强是保持认证比成为 CPST 更常见的原因。时间和距离对座椅检查参与的影响最大。对于 10-15%的 CPST,预约与上门服务和雇主因素被认为非常有影响力。很少有 CPST 认为免费食品和付款/赠品非常有影响力。大约 40%的受访者被认为是高活动度(>24 个座椅/年),三分之一是中等活动度(5-24 个座椅/年),四分之一是低活动度(<5 个座椅/年)。高活动度的 CPST 最常报告既获得报酬又自愿检查座椅,与安全儿童联盟合作,在执法或社会服务部门工作,并且至少重新认证过一次。参与座椅检查的动机与活动水平无关。了解 CPST 的人口统计学特征和动机可以帮助密歇根州 OHSP 招募和留住一支致力于提高儿童乘客安全的劳动力。举办座椅检查的机构可以使用这些结果,使他们所采用的激励 CPST 在其社区服务的策略与对 CPST 参与影响最大的因素保持一致。