Table 3. Comparison of birthing mothers' child safety restraint knowledge before and after intervention.
| Intervention Mothers | Comparison Mothers | Difference2 | |||||||
| Pre (n = 114) | Post (n = 84) | p-value1 | Pre (n = 102) | Post (n = 85) | p-value1 | p-value | |||
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | ||||||
| Safest seating position for child | 0.18 | 0.69 | 0.0034 | ||||||
| Front seat next to driver | 10(8.8) | 7(8.3) | 4(3.9) | 4(4.7) | |||||
| Left or right rear seat | 92(80.7) | 74(88.1) | 79(77.5) | 61(71.8) | |||||
| Rear middle seat | 12(10.5) | 3(3.6) | 19(18.6) | 20(23.5) | |||||
| Safest seating practice | 0.00 | 0.88 | 0.0014 | ||||||
| Hold in arm | 13(11.4) | 2(2.4) | 7(6.9) | 4(4.7) | |||||
| Rear seat with adult accompanying | 29(25.4) | 6(7.1) | 34(33.3) | 25(29.4) | |||||
| With seat belt in front seat | 5(4.4) | 1(1.2) | 2(2.0) | 3(3.5) | |||||
| With seat belt in rear seat | 7(6.1) | 2(2.4) | 10(9.8) | 9(10.5) | |||||
| Child safety seat or booster | 60(52.6) | 73(86.9) | 49(48.0) | 44(51.7) | |||||
| Seat belt is better than CSS for child under 6 | 0.25 | 0.96 | 0.274 | ||||||
| No | 89(78.1) | 73(86.9) | 76(74.5) | 62(72.9) | |||||
| Yes | 11(9.6) | 6(7.1) | 5(4.9) | 4(4.7) | |||||
| Not sure | 14(12.3) | 5(5.9) | 21(20.6) | 19(22.4) | |||||
| Necessity to use CSS | 0.03 | 0.73 | 0.274 | ||||||
| No | 5(4.3) | 3(3.6) | 6(5.9) | 7(8.2) | |||||
| Not sure | 15(13.2) | 3(3.6) | 24(23.5) | 20(23.5) | |||||
| Yes | 94(82.5) | 78(92.8) | 72(70.6) | 58(68.3) | |||||
| Proper age to use CSS 3 | 0.95 | 0.67 | 0.034 | ||||||
| 0∼1 Y | 54(47.3) | 40(47.6) | 48(47.1) | 35(41.2) | |||||
| 2∼5 Y | 95(83.3) | 75(89.3) | 89(87.3) | 68(80.0) | |||||
| 6–13 Y | 35(30.7) | 25(29.7) | 31(30.4) | 30(35.3) | |||||
| Classification of CSS 3 | - | - | 0.00 | ||||||
| According to fixed way | - | 33(39.3) | - | 26(30.6) | |||||
| According to child age/weight | - | 66(78.6) | - | 33(38.8) | |||||
| Don't know | - | 9(10.7) | - | 26(30.6) | |||||
| Consideration of future use | - | - | 0.754 | ||||||
| Yes | - | 41(48.8) | - | 40(47.1) | |||||
| Maybe | - | 42(50.0) | - | 42(49.4) | |||||
| No | - | 1(1.2) | - | 3(3.5) | |||||
| Reason for non-use of CSS c | - | 0.24 | |||||||
| Insufficient knowledge | - | 72(85.7) | - | 66(77.6) | - | ||||
| Absence of laws | - | 46(54.7) | - | 39(45.9) | |||||
| High price | - | 16(19.1) | - | 19(22.3) | |||||
| Troubles with the usage | - | 24(28.6) | - | 38(44.7) | |||||
Note: 1. There were 30 mothers in the intervention group and 17 mothers in the control group lost to follow up during the postpartum stay in the hospital. P-values were based on chi-square tests of the different pre- and post-interventions.
2. The differences were based on chi-square tests between intervention and comparison groups post- intervention. There were no significant differences between the intervention group and control group in the baseline pre survey.
3. Sum of percentage is over 100 due to multiple choices.
4 P-values were based on fisher exact tests.