Motor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death and nonfatal injury among U.S. adolescents, resulting in approximately 2,500 deaths and 300,000 nonfatal injuries each year. Risk for motor-vehicle crashes and resulting injuries and deaths varies, depending on such behaviors as seat belt use or impaired or distracted driving. Improved understanding of adolescents' transportation risk behaviors can guide prevention efforts. Therefore, data from the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey were analyzed to determine prevalence of transportation risk behaviors, including not always wearing a seat belt, riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol (riding with a drinking driver), driving after drinking alcohol, and texting or e-mailing while driving. Differences by student characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, academic grades in school, and sexual identity) were calculated. Multivariable analyses controlling for student characteristics examined associations between risk behaviors. Approximately 43.1% of U.S. high school students did not always wear a seat belt and 16.7% rode with a drinking driver during the 30 days before the survey. Approximately 59.9% of students had driven a car during the 30 days before the survey. Among students who drove, 5.4% had driven after drinking alcohol and 39.0% had texted or e-mailed while driving. Prevalence of not always wearing a seat belt was higher among students who were younger, black, or had lower grades. Riding with a drinking driver was higher among Hispanic students or students with lower grades. Driving after drinking alcohol was higher among students who were older, male, Hispanic, or had lower grades. Texting while driving was higher among older students or white students. Few differences existed by sexual identity. Multivariable analyses revealed that students engaging in one transportation risk behavior were more likely to engage in other transportation risk behaviors. Traffic safety and public health professionals can use these findings to reduce transportation risk behaviors by selecting, implementing, and contextualizing the most appropriate and effective strategies for specific populations and for the environment.

In March 2021, Emergency Intake Sites (EIS) were created to address capacity shortfalls during a surge of Unaccompanied Children at the Mexico-United States land border. The COVID-19 Zone Plan (ZP) was developed to decrease COVID-19 transmission. COVID-19 cumulative percent (%) positivity was analyzed to evaluate the impact of the ZP, venue type and bed capacity across EIS from April 1-May 31, 2021. Results: Of 11 EIS sites analyzed, 54% implemented the recommended ZP. The overall % positivity was 2.47% (95% CI 2.39-2.55). The % positivity at EIS with the ZP, 1.83% (95% CI 1.71-1.95), was lower than that at EIS without the ZP, 2.83%, ( 95% CI 2.72-2.93), and showed a lower 7-day moving average of % positivity. Conclusion: Results showed a possible effect of the ZP on % positivity when controlling for venue type and bed capacity in a specific EIS group comparison, indicating that all three variables could have had effect on % positivity. They also showed that smaller intake facilities may be recommendable during public health emergencies.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study is to use 3D technology to measure in-vehicle belt fit both with and without booster seats across different vehicles among a large, diverse sample of children and to compare belt fit with and without a booster. METHODS: Lap and shoulder belt fit were measured for 108 children ages 6-12years sitting in the second-row, outboard seats of three vehicles from October 2017 to March 2018. Each child was measured with no booster, a backless booster, and a high-back (HB) booster in three different vehicles. Alternative high-back (HB HW) and backless boosters that could accommodate higher weights were used for children who were too large to fit in the standard boosters. Lap and torso belt scores were computed based on the belt location relative to skeletal landmarks. RESULTS: Both lap and torso belt fit scores were significantly different across vehicles when using the vehicle belt alone (no booster). In all vehicles, lap belt fit improved when using boosters compared with no booster among children ages 6-12years in rear seats-with one exception of the HB HW booster in the minivan. Torso belt fit improved when using boosters compared with no booster in the sedan, and torso belt fit improved in the minivan and SUV with the use of HB and HB HW boosters when compared with no booster. CONCLUSIONS: Lap and torso belt fit for children ages 6-12years in rear seats was substantially improved by using boosters. Parents and caregivers should continue to have their children use booster seats until vehicle seat belts fit properly which likely does not occur until children are 9-12years old. Decision makers can consider strengthening child passenger restraint laws with booster seat provisions that require children who have outgrown car seats to use booster seats until at least age 9 to improve belt fit and reduce crash injuries and deaths.

OBJECTIVE(S): To examine child deaths in motor vehicle crashes by rurality, restraint use, and state child passenger restraint laws. STUDY DESIGN: 2015-2019 Fatality Analysis Reporting System data were analyzed to determine deaths and rates by passenger and crash characteristics. Optimal restraint use was defined using age and type of restraint according to child passenger safety recommendations. RESULTS: Death rates per 100,000 population were highest for non-Hispanic Black (1.96; [1.84,2.07]) and American Indian or Alaska Native children (2.67; [2.14,3.20]) and lowest for Asian or Pacific Islander children (0.57; [0.47,0.67]). Death rates increased with rurality with the lowest rate (0.88; [0.84,0.92]) in the most urban counties and the highest rate (4.47; [3.88,5.06]) in the most rural counties. Children who were not optimally restrained had higher deaths rates compared with optimally restrained children (0.84; [0.81,0.87] vs. 0.44; [0.42,0.46], respectively). The death rate was higher in counties where states only required child passenger restraint use for passengers aged ≤6 years (1.64; [1.50,1.78]) compared with those requiring child passenger restraint use for passengers age ≤7 or ≤8 (1.06; [1.01,1.12]). CONCLUSIONS: Proper restraint use and extending the ages covered by child passenger restraint laws reduce the risk for child crash deaths. Additionally, racial and geographic disparities in crash deaths were identified, especially among Black and Hispanic children in rural areas. Decision makers can consider extending the ages covered by child passenger restraint laws until at least age 9 to increase proper child restraint use and reduce crash injuries and deaths.

Motor vehicle crashes are preventable, yet they continue to be a leading cause of death in the United States. An average of 36,791 crash deaths occurred each year (101 deaths each day) during 2015-2019 in the United States. To measure progress in reducing motor vehicle crash deaths, CDC calculated population-based, distance-based, and vehicle-based death rates in 2015 and 2019, as well as average rates and average percent changes from 2015 to 2019, for the United States and 28 other high-income countries for which data were available. In 2019, the population-based death rate in the United States (11.1 per 100,000 population; 36,355 deaths) was the highest among the 29 high-income countries and was 2.3 times the average rate of the 28 other high-income countries (4.8). The 2019 U.S. distance-based death rate (1.11 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) was higher than the average rate among 20 other high-income countries (0.92), and the 2019 U.S. vehicle-based death rate (1.21 per 10,000 registered vehicles) was higher than the average rate among 27 other high-income countries (0.78). The population-based death rate in the United States increased 0.1% from 2015 to 2019, whereas the average change among 27 other high-income countries was -10.4%. Widespread implementation of proven strategies and the Safe System approach, which accounts for human error and works to protect everyone on the road, (1) can help reduce motor vehicle crash deaths in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Daily more than 3,000 children are injured or killed on the road, often along the school route. Road traffic crashes and resulting injuries are preventable. More can be done to reduce injuries and save lives. Traffic Conflict Techniques (TCTs) are simple methods of collecting observational data to evaluate the effectiveness of road safety interventions through counting and analyzing traffic conflicts. A TCT Toolkit was developed and piloted to analyze pedestrian-vehicle traffic conflicts in school zones in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Three non-governmental organizations in Ghana, Vietnam, and Mexico applied three TCTs from the TCT Toolkit to collect traffic conflict data before (pre-intervention) and after (post-intervention) road safety intervention implementation. As the number of traffic conflicts was often less than 100, confidence intervals (CIs) based on gamma distributions were calculated for the traffic conflict rate. Using the calculated traffic conflict rate, the difference between pre- and post-intervention rates was assessed by determining overlap of the CIs. When CIs did not overlap, the difference was said to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level. RESULTS: For each method, results indicated a decrease in traffic conflicts between pre- and post-intervention data collection periods. Pre- and post-intervention traffic conflict rates with non-overlapping CIs demonstrated the results were statistically significant, providing evidence that the road safety interventions were effective. CONCLUSIONS: TCTs are relatively low-cost and simple techniques that provide an opportunity to base road safety improvement decisions on real-world data. TCTs are effective in objectively evaluating road safety interventions and can help decision-makers evaluate strategies for improving road safety, preventing injuries and saving lives.

BACKGROUND: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for children and youth aged 1-19 in the United States. The purpose of this report is to describe how unintentional injury death rates among children and youth aged 0-19 years have changed during 2010-2019. METHOD: CDC analyzed 2010-2019 data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) to determine two-year average annual number and rate of unintentional injury deaths for children and youth aged 0-19 years by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, mechanism, county urbanization level, and state. RESULTS: From 2010-2011 to 2018-2019, unintentional injury death rates decreased 11% overall-representing over 1,100 fewer annual deaths. However, rates increased among some groups-including an increase in deaths due to suffocation among infants (20%) and increases in motor-vehicle traffic deaths among Black children (9%) and poisoning deaths among Black (37%) and Hispanic (50%) children. In 2018-2019, rates were higher for males than females (11.3 vs. 6.6 per 100,000 population), children aged < 1 and 15-19 years (31.9 and 16.8 per 100,000) than other age groups, among American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) and Blacks than Whites (19.4 and 12.4 vs. 9.0 per 100,000), motor-vehicle traffic (MVT) than other causes of injury (4.0 per 100,000), and rates increased as rurality increased (6.8 most urban [large central metro] vs. 17.8 most rural [non-core/non-metro] per 100,000). From 2010-2011 to 2018-2019, 49 states plus DC had stable or decreasing unintentional injury death rates; death rates increased only in California (8%)-driven by poisoning deaths. Conclusion and Practical Application: While the overall injury death rates improved, certain subgroups and their caregivers can benefit from focused prevention strategies, including infants and Black, Hispanic, and AIAN children. Focusing effective strategies to reduce suffocation, MVT, and poisoning deaths among those at disproportionate risk could further reduce unintentional injury deaths among children and youth in the next decade.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol-impaired driving (AID) crashes accounted for 10 511 deaths in the USA in 2018, or 29% of all motor vehicle-related crash deaths. This study describes self-reported AID in the USA during 2014, 2016 and 2018 and determines AID-related demographic and behavioural characteristics. METHODS: Data were from the nationally representative Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Adults were asked 'During the past 30 days, how many times have you driven when you have had perhaps too much to drink?' AID prevalence, episode counts and rates per 1000 population were estimated using annualised individual AID episodes and weighted survey population estimates. Results were stratified by characteristics including gender, binge drinking, seatbelt use and healthcare engagement. RESULTS: Nationally, 1.7% of adults engaged in AID during the preceding 30 days in 2014, 2.1% in 2016 and 1.7% in 2018. Estimated annual number of AID episodes varied across year (2014: 111 million, 2016: 186 million, 2018: 147 million) and represented 3.7 million, 4.9 million and 4.0 million adults, respectively. Corresponding yearly episode rates (95% CIs) were 452 (412-492) in 2014, 741 (676-806) in 2016 and 574 (491-657) in 2018 per 1000 population. Among those reporting AID in 2018, 80% were men, 86% reported binge drinking, 47% did not always use seatbelts and 60% saw physicians for routine check-ups within the past year. CONCLUSIONS: Although AID episodes declined from 2016 to 2018, AID was still prevalent and more common among men and those who binge drink. Most reporting AID received routine healthcare. Proven AID-reducing strategies exist.

COVID-19 vaccination remains the most effective means to achieve control of the pandemic. In the United States, COVID-19 cases and deaths have markedly declined since their peak in early January 2021, due in part to increased vaccination coverage (1). However, during June 19-July 23, 2021, COVID-19 cases increased approximately 300% nationally, followed by increases in hospitalizations and deaths, driven by the highly transmissible B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant* of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Available data indicate that the vaccines authorized in the United States (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) offer high levels of protection against severe illness and death from infection with the Delta variant and other currently circulating variants of the virus (2). Despite widespread availability, vaccine uptake has slowed nationally with wide variation in coverage by state (range = 33.9%-67.2%) and by county (range = 8.8%-89.0%).(†) Unvaccinated persons, as well as persons with certain immunocompromising conditions (3), remain at substantial risk for infection, severe illness, and death, especially in areas where the level of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission is high. The Delta variant is more than two times as transmissible as the original strains circulating at the start of the pandemic and is causing large, rapid increases in infections, which could compromise the capacity of some local and regional health care systems to provide medical care for the communities they serve. Until vaccination coverage is high and community transmission is low, public health practitioners, as well as schools, businesses, and institutions (organizations) need to regularly assess the need for prevention strategies to avoid stressing health care capacity and imperiling adequate care for both COVID-19 and other non-COVID-19 conditions. CDC recommends five critical factors be considered to inform local decision-making: 1) level of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission; 2) health system capacity; 3) COVID-19 vaccination coverage; 4) capacity for early detection of increases in COVID-19 cases; and 5) populations at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19. Among strategies to prevent COVID-19, CDC recommends all unvaccinated persons wear masks in public indoor settings. Based on emerging evidence on the Delta variant (2), CDC also recommends that fully vaccinated persons wear masks in public indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission. Fully vaccinated persons might consider wearing a mask in public indoor settings, regardless of transmission level, if they or someone in their household is immunocompromised or is at increased risk for severe disease, or if someone in their household is unvaccinated (including children aged <12 years who are currently ineligible for vaccination).

Evidence-based prevention strategies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Consistent and correct use of masks can prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, which predominantly occurs through inhalation and other exposure to respiratory droplets from infected persons. Mask use is particularly important because presymptomatic and asymptomatic spread is responsible for nearly 60% of COVID-19 cases.1,2 Universal and proper masking results in substantial community benefits.2 To better leverage the prevention benefit of masks on community transmission, many states require that people wear a mask in public. As of March 1, 2021, 36 states and the District of Columbia had a mask mandate in effect.

CDC recommends a combination of evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Because the virus is transmitted predominantly by inhaling respiratory droplets from infected persons, universal mask use can help reduce transmission (1). Starting in April, 39 states and the District of Columbia (DC) issued mask mandates in 2020. Reducing person-to-person interactions by avoiding nonessential shared spaces, such as restaurants, where interactions are typically unmasked and physical distancing (≥6 ft) is difficult to maintain, can also decrease transmission (2). In March and April 2020, 49 states and DC prohibited any on-premises dining at restaurants, but by mid-June, all states and DC had lifted these restrictions. To examine the association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with COVID-19 cases and deaths during March 1-December 31, 2020, county-level data on mask mandates and restaurant reopenings were compared with county-level changes in COVID-19 case and death growth rates relative to the mandate implementation and reopening dates. Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after implementation. Allowing any on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after reopening, and increases in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 61-80 and 81-100 days after reopening. Implementing mask mandates was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whereas reopening restaurants for on-premises dining was associated with increased transmission. Policies that require universal mask use and restrict any on-premises restaurant dining are important components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). Such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States (3,4).

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case and electronic laboratory data reported to CDC were analyzed to describe demographic characteristics, underlying health conditions, and clinical outcomes, as well as trends in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 incidence and testing volume among U.S. children, adolescents, and young adults (persons aged 0-24 years). This analysis provides a critical update and expansion of previously published data, to include trends after fall school reopenings, and adds preschool-aged children (0-4 years) and college-aged young adults (18-24 years) (1). Among children, adolescents, and young adults, weekly incidence (cases per 100,000 persons) increased with age and was highest during the final week of the review period (the week of December 6) among all age groups. Time trends in weekly reported incidence for children and adolescents aged 0-17 years tracked consistently with trends observed among adults since June, with both incidence and positive test results tending to increase since September after summer declines. Reported incidence and positive test results among children aged 0-10 years were consistently lower than those in older age groups. To reduce community transmission, which will support schools in operating more safely for in-person learning, communities and schools should fully implement and strictly adhere to recommended mitigation strategies, especially universal and proper masking, to reduce COVID-19 incidence.

In the 10 months since the first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the United States on January 20, 2020 (1), approximately 13.8 million cases and 272,525 deaths have been reported in the United States. On October 30, the number of new cases reported in the United States in a single day exceeded 100,000 for the first time, and by December 2 had reached a daily high of 196,227.* With colder weather, more time spent indoors, the ongoing U.S. holiday season, and silent spread of disease, with approximately 50% of transmission from asymptomatic persons (2), the United States has entered a phase of high-level transmission where a multipronged approach to implementing all evidence-based public health strategies at both the individual and community levels is essential. This summary guidance highlights critical evidence-based CDC recommendations and sustainable strategies to reduce COVID-19 transmission. These strategies include 1) universal face mask use, 2) maintaining physical distance from other persons and limiting in-person contacts, 3) avoiding nonessential indoor spaces and crowded outdoor spaces, 4) increasing testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons, 5) promptly identifying, quarantining, and testing close contacts of persons with known COVID-19, 6) safeguarding persons most at risk for severe illness or death from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, 7) protecting essential workers with provision of adequate personal protective equipment and safe work practices, 8) postponing travel, 9) increasing room air ventilation and enhancing hand hygiene and environmental disinfection, and 10) achieving widespread availability and high community coverage with effective COVID-19 vaccines. In combination, these strategies can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, long-term sequelae or disability, and death, and mitigate the pandemic's economic impact. Consistent implementation of these strategies improves health equity, preserves health care capacity, maintains the function of essential businesses, and supports the availability of in-person instruction for kindergarten through grade 12 schools and preschool. Individual persons, households, and communities should take these actions now to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission from its current high level. These actions will provide a bridge to a future with wide availability and high community coverage of effective vaccines, when safe return to more everyday activities in a range of settings will be possible.

The Head Start program, including Head Start for children aged 3-5 years and Early Head Start for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women, promotes early learning and healthy development among children aged 0-5 years whose families meet the annually adjusted Federal Poverty Guidelines* throughout the United States.(†) These programs are funded by grants administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families (ACF). In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,(§) which appropriated $750 million for Head Start, equating to approximately $875 in CARES Act funds per enrolled child. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, most states required all schools (K-12) to close or transition to virtual learning. The Office of Head Start gave its local programs that remained open the flexibility to use CARES Act funds to implement CDC-recommended guidance (1) and other ancillary measures to provide in-person services in the early phases of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in April and May 2020, when many similar programs remained closed. Guidance included information on masks, other personal protective equipment, physical setup, supplies necessary for maintaining healthy environments and operations, and the need for additional staff members to ensure small class sizes. Head Start programs successfully implemented CDC-recommended mitigation strategies and supported other practices that helped to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission among children and staff members. CDC conducted a mixed-methods analysis to document these approaches and inform implementation of mitigation strategies in other child care settings. Implementing and monitoring adherence to recommended mitigation strategies reduces risk for COVID-19 transmission in child care settings. These approaches could be applied to other early care and education settings that remain open for in-person learning and potentially reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Breastfeeding has health benefits for both infants and mothers and is recommended by numerous health and medical organizations*(,†) (1). The birth hospitalization is a critical period for establishing breastfeeding; however, some hospital practices, particularly related to mother-newborn contact, have given rise to concern about the potential for mother-to-newborn transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2). CDC conducted a COVID-19 survey (July 15-August 20, 2020) among 1,344 hospitals that completed the 2018 Maternity Practices in Infant Nutrition and Care (mPINC) survey to assess current practices and breastfeeding support while in the hospital. Among mothers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, 14.0% of hospitals discouraged and 6.5% prohibited skin-to-skin care; 37.8% discouraged and 5.3% prohibited rooming-in; 20.1% discouraged direct breastfeeding but allowed it if the mother chose; and 12.7% did not support direct breastfeeding, but encouraged feeding of expressed breast milk. In response to the pandemic, 17.9% of hospitals reported reduced in-person lactation support, and 72.9% reported discharging mothers and their newborns <48 hours after birth. Some of the infection prevention and control (IPC) practices that hospitals were implementing conflicted with evidence-based care to support breastfeeding. Mothers who are separated from their newborn or not feeding directly at the breast might need additional postdischarge breastfeeding support. In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that newborns discharged before 48 hours receive prompt follow-up with a pediatric health care provider.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the potential injuries and costs that could be averted by implementing evidence-based road safety policies and interventions not currently utilized in one U.S. state, North Carolina (NC). NC consistently has annual motor vehicle-related death rates above the national average. METHODS: We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States (MV PICCS) tool as a foundation for examining the potential injuries and costs that could be averted from underutilized evidence-based policies, assuming a $1.5 million implementation budget and that income generated from policy-related fines and fees would help offset costs. We further examined costs by payer source. RESULTS: Model results indicated that seven interventions should be prioritized for implementation in NC: increased alcohol ignition interlock use, increased seat belt fines, in-person license renewal for ages 70 and older, license plate impoundment, seat belt enforcement campaigns, saturation patrols, and speed cameras. Increasing the seat belt fine had the potential to avert the greatest number of fatal (n = 70) and non-fatal (n = 6,597) injuries annually, along with being the most cost-effective of the recommended interventions. Collectively, the seven recommended evidence-based policies/interventions have the potential to avert 302 fatal injuries, 16,607 non-fatal injuries, and $839 million annually in NC with the greatest costs averted for insurers. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the utility of the MV PICCS tool as a foundation for exploring state-specific impacts that could be realized through increased evidence-based road safety policy and intervention implementation. For NC, we found that increasing the seat belt fine would avert the most injuries, and had the greatest financial benefits for the state, and the lowest implementation costs. Incorporating fines and fees into policy implementation can create important financial feedbacks that allow for implementation of additional evidence-based and cost-effective policies/interventions. Given the recent uptick in U.S. motor vehicle-related deaths, analyses informed by the MV PICCS tool can help researchers and policy makers initiate discussions about successful state-specific strategies for reducing the burden of crashes.

Globally, approximately 170,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported, including an estimated 7,000 deaths in approximately 150 countries (1). On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic (2). Data from China have indicated that older adults, particularly those with serious underlying health conditions, are at higher risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness and death than are younger persons (3). Although the majority of reported COVID-19 cases in China were mild (81%), approximately 80% of deaths occurred among adults aged ≥60 years; only one (0.1%) death occurred in a person aged ≤19 years (3). In this report, COVID-19 cases in the United States that occurred during February 12-March 16, 2020 and severity of disease (hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit [ICU], and death) were analyzed by age group. As of March 16, a total of 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States had been reported to CDC, with multiple cases reported among older adults living in long-term care facilities (4). Overall, 31% of cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths associated with COVID-19 were among adults aged ≥65 years with the highest percentage of severe outcomes among persons aged ≥85 years. In contrast, no ICU admissions or deaths were reported among persons aged ≤19 years. Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups.

In the United States, driving while impaired is illegal. Nonetheless, an estimated 10,511 alcohol-impaired driving deaths occurred in 2018.* The contribution of marijuana and other illicit drugs to these and other impaired driving deaths remains unknown. Data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) indicated that in the United States during 2014, 12.4% of all persons aged 16-25 years reported driving under the influence of alcohol, and 3.2% reported driving under the influence of marijuana (1). The impairing effects of alcohol are well established, but less is known about the effects of illicit substances or other psychoactive drugs (e.g., marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, and opioids, including heroin). This report provides the most recent national estimates of self-reported driving under the influence of marijuana and illicit drugs among persons aged >/=16 years, using 2018 public-use data from NSDUH. Prevalences of driving under the influence of marijuana and illicit drugs other than marijuana were assessed for persons aged >/=16 years by age group, sex, and race/ethnicity. During 2018, 12 million (4.7%) U.S. residents reported driving under the influence of marijuana in the past 12 months; 2.3 million (0.9%) reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs other than marijuana. Driving under the influence was more prevalent among males and among persons aged 16-34 years. Effective measures that deter driving under the influence of drugs are limited (2). Development, evaluation, and further implementation of strategies to prevent alcohol-impaired,(dagger) drug-impaired, and polysubstance-impaired driving, coupled with standardized testing of impaired drivers and drivers involved in fatal crashes, could advance understanding of drug- and polysubstance-impaired driving and support prevention efforts.

BACKGROUND: We examined marijuana and alcohol use trends among drivers aged >/=16 years evaluated at Level I trauma centers before and after Arizona legalized medical marijuana in April 2011. METHODS: We conducted interrupted time series (ITS) analysis of urine drug screens for marijuana metabolites and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) data from the 2008-2014 Arizona State Trauma Registry. RESULTS: Among 30,083 injured drivers, 14,710 had marijuana test results, and 2590 were positive for marijuana; of these, 1087 (42%) also tested positive for alcohol. Among 23,186 drivers with BAC results, 5266 exceeded the legal limit for their age. Compared with prelaw trends (models if law had not been enacted), postlaw models showed small but significant annual increases in the proportions of drivers testing positive for either substance. By the end of 2014, the proportion of drivers testing positive for marijuana was 9.6% versus a projected 5.6% if the law had not been enacted, and the proportion of drivers with illegal BACs was 15.7% versus a projected 8.2%. When ITS was restricted to only substance-tested drivers, no significant differences were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small annual postlaw increases in the proportion of marijuana-positive drivers compared with the prelaw trend, alcohol-impaired driving remains a more prevalent threat to road safety in Arizona.

OBJECTIVE: We examined alcohol and marijuana use among injured drivers aged 16-20 years evaluated at Arizona level 1 trauma centers during 2008-2014. METHODS: Using data from the Arizona State Trauma Registry, we conducted a descriptive analysis of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and qualitative test results (positive or negative) for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) by year of age, sex, race, ethnicity, injury severity, seat belt use, motorcycle helmet use, and type of vehicle driven. To explore compliance with Arizona's motorcycle helmet law requiring helmet use for riders <18 years old, we examined helmet use by age. RESULTS: Data on 5,069 injured young drivers were analyzed; the annual number of injured drivers declined by 41% during the 7-year study period. Among the 76% (n = 3,849) of drivers with BAC results, 19% tested positive, indicating that at least 15% of all drivers had positive BACs. Eighty-two percent of the BAC-positive drivers had BACs >/=0.08 g/dL, the illegal threshold for drivers aged >/=21 years. Among the 49% (n = 2,476) of drivers with THC results, 30% tested positive, indicating that at least 14% of all drivers were THC-positive. American Indians and blacks had the highest proportion of THC-tested drivers with positive THC results (38%). In addition, 28% of tested American Indians had positive results for both substances, more than twice the proportion seen in all other race or ethnic groups. Crude prevalence ratios suggested that drivers who tested positive for alcohol or THC were less likely than those who tested negative to wear a helmet or seat belt, further increasing their injury risk. Helmet use among motorcyclists was lower among 16- and 17-year-old riders compared to 18- to 20-year-olds, despite Arizona's motorcycle helmet law requiring riders aged <18 years to wear a helmet. CONCLUSIONS: About 1 in 4 injured drivers aged 16-20 years tested positive for alcohol, THC, or both substances. Most drivers with positive BACs were legally intoxicated (BAC >/=0.08 g/dL). All substance-using young drivers in this study were candidates for substance abuse screening and possible referral to treatment. Broader enforcement of existing laws targeting underage access to alcohol and alcohol-impaired driving could further reduce injuries among young Arizona drivers. To further reduce crash-related injuries and fatalities among all road users, the state could consider implementing a primary enforcement seat belt law and a universal motorcycle helmet law.

OBJECTIVES: Nationally, animal-motor vehicle crashes (AVCs) account for 4.4% of all types of motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). AVCs are a safety risk for drivers and animals and many National Park Service (NPS) units (e.g., national park, national monument, or national parkway) have known AVC risk factors, including rural locations and substantial animal densities. We sought to describe conditions and circumstances involving AVCs to guide traffic and wildlife management for prevention of AVCs in select NPS units. METHODS: We conducted an analysis using NPS law enforcement MVC data. An MVC is a collision involving an in-transit motor vehicle that occurred or began on a public roadway. An AVC is characterized as a collision between a motor vehicle and an animal. A non-AVC is a crash between a motor vehicle and any object other than an animal or noncollision event (e.g., rollover crash). The final data for analysis included 54,068 records from 51 NPS units during 1990-2013. Counts and proportions were calculated for categorical variables and medians and ranges were calculated for continuous variables. We used Pearson's chi-square to compare circumstances of AVCs and non-AVCs. Data were compiled at the park regional level; NPS parks are assigned to 1 of 7 regions based on the park's location. RESULTS: AVCs accounted for 10.4% (5,643 of 54,068) of all MVCs from 51 NPS units. The Northeast (2,021 of 5,643; 35.8%) and Intermountain (1,180 of 5,643; 20.9%) regions had the largest percentage of the total AVC burden. November was the peak month for AVCs across all regions (881 of 5,643; 15.6%); however, seasonality varied by park geographic regions. The highest counts of AVCs were reported during fall for the National Capital, Northeast/Southeast, and Northeast regions; winter for the Southeast region; and summer for Intermountain and Pacific West regions. CONCLUSIONS: AVCs represent a public health and wildlife safety concern for NPS units. AVCs in select NPS units were approximately 2-fold higher than the national percentage for AVCs. The peak season for AVCs varied by NPS region. Knowledge of region-specific seasonality patterns for AVCs can help NPS staff develop mitigation strategies for use primarily during peak AVC months. Improving AVC data collection might provide NPS with a more complete understanding of risk factors and seasonal trends for specific NPS units. By collecting information concerning the animal species hit, park managers can better understand the impacts of AVC to wildlife population health.

OBJECTIVES: Both the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) can be used to examine motor vehicle crash (MVC) deaths. These 2 data systems operate independently, using different methods to collect and code information about the type of vehicle (e.g., car, truck, bus) and road user (e.g., occupant, motorcyclist, pedestrian) involved in an MVC. A substantial proportion of MVC deaths in NVSS are coded as "unspecified" road user, which reduces the utility of the NVSS data for describing burden and identifying prevention measures. This study aimed to describe characteristics of unspecified road user deaths in NVSS to further our understanding of how these groups may be similar to occupant road user deaths. METHODS: Using data from 1999 to 2015, we compared NVSS and FARS MVC death counts by road user type, overall and by age group, gender, and year. In addition, we examined factors associated with the categorization of an MVC death as unspecified road user such as state of residence of decedent, type of medical death investigation system, and place of death. RESULTS: The number of MVC occupant deaths in NVSS was smaller than that in FARS in each year and the number of unspecified road user deaths in NVSS was greater than that in FARS. The sum of the number of occupant and unspecified road user deaths in NVSS, however, was approximately equal to the number of FARS occupant deaths. Age group and gender distributions were roughly equivalent for NVSS and FARS occupants and NVSS unspecified road users. Within NVSS, the number of MVC deaths listed as unspecified road user varied across states and over time. Other categories of road users (motorcyclists, pedal cyclists, and pedestrians) were consistent when comparing NVSS and FARS. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the unspecified road user MVC deaths in NVSS look similar to those of MVC occupants according to selected characteristics. Additional study is needed to identify documentation and reporting challenges in individual states and over time and to identify opportunities for improvement in the coding of road user type in NVSS.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol or drug impaired driving can cause motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and death. Estimates of drug impaired driving are difficult to obtain. This study explores self-reported prevalence of and factors associated with alcohol, marijuana, and prescription opioid use and impaired driving among adults aged 21 years and older in the U.S. METHODS: Self-reported data from 3,383 adults in the 2015 Fall ConsumerStyles survey were analyzed. Respondents were asked about alcohol, marijuana, and prescription opioid use and driving while impaired in the last 30 days. Weighted prevalence estimates were calculated. Prevalence ratios and Poisson log-linear regressions were used to identify factors associated with substance use and impaired driving. RESULTS: Alcohol use was reported by 49.5% (n = 1,676) of respondents; of these 4.9% (n = 82) reported alcohol impaired driving. Marijuana use was reported by 5.5% (n = 187) of respondents; of these 31.6% (n = 59) reported marijuana impaired driving. Prescription opioid use was reported by 8.8% (n = 298) of respondents; of these 3.4% (n = 10) reported prescription opioid impaired driving. Polysubstance use of alcohol and marijuana (concurrent use) was reported by 2.7% (n = 93) respondents. Among those, 10.8% (n = 10) reported driving impaired by both alcohol and marijuana. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired driving was self-reported among alcohol, marijuana, and prescription opioid users. This report demonstrates the need for more robust alcohol and drug-related data collection, reporting, and analyses, as well as the emerging need for surveillance of marijuana and prescription opioid impaired driving. States can consider using proven strategies to prevent impaired driving and evaluate promising practices.

Introduction: As more states legalize medical/recreational marijuana use, it is important to determine if state motor-vehicle surveillance systems can effectively monitor and track driving under the influence (DUI) of marijuana. This study assessed Colorado's Department of Revenue motor-vehicle crash data system, Electronic Accident Reporting System (EARS), to monitor non-fatal crashes involving driving under the influence (DUI) of marijuana. Methods: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on surveillance system evaluation were used to assess EARS' usefulness, flexibility, timeliness, simplicity, acceptability, and data quality. We assessed system components, interviewed key stakeholders, and analyzed completeness of Colorado statewide 2014 motor-vehicle crash records. Results: EARS contains timely and complete data, but does not effectively monitor non-fatal motor-vehicle crashes related to DUI of marijuana. Information on biological sample type collected from drivers and toxicology results were not recorded into EARS; however, EARS is a flexible system that can incorporate new data without increasing surveillance system burden. Conclusions: States, including Colorado, could consider standardization of drug testing and mandatory reporting policies for drivers involved in motor-vehicle crashes and proactively address the narrow window of time for sample collection to improve DUI of marijuana surveillance. Practical applications: The evaluation of state motor-vehicle crash systems' ability to capture crashes involving drug impaired driving (DUID) is a critical first step for identifying frequency and risk factors for crashes related to DUID.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Motor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States. Compared with urban residents, rural residents are at an increased risk for death from crashes and are less likely to wear seat belts. These differences have not been well described by levels of rurality. REPORTING PERIOD: 2014. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS: Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were used to identify passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths from motor-vehicle crashes and estimate the prevalence of seat belt use. FARS, a census of U.S. motor-vehicle crashes involving one or more deaths, was used to identify passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths among adults aged ≥18 years. Passenger-vehicle occupants were defined as persons driving or riding in passenger cars, light trucks, vans, or sport utility vehicles. Death rates per 100,000 population, age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population and the proportion of occupants who were unrestrained at the time of the fatal crash, were calculated. BRFSS, an annual, state-based, random-digit-dialed telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population aged ≥18 years, was used to estimate prevalence of seat belt use. FARS and BRFSS data were analyzed by a six-level rural-urban designation, based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2013 rural-urban continuum codes, and stratified by census region and type of state seat belt enforcement law (primary or secondary). RESULTS: Within each census region, age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates per 100,000 population increased with increasing rurality, from the most urban to the most rural counties: South, 6.8 to 29.2; Midwest, 5.3 to 25.8; West, 3.9 to 40.0; and Northeast, 3.5 to 10.8. (For the Northeast, data for the most rural counties were not reported because of suppression criteria; comparison is for the most urban to the second-most rural counties.) Similarly, the proportion of occupants who were unrestrained at the time of the fatal crash increased as rurality increased. Self-reported seat belt use in the United States decreased with increasing rurality, ranging from 88.8% in the most urban counties to 74.7% in the most rural counties. Similar differences in age-adjusted death rates and seat belt use were observed in states with primary and secondary seat belt enforcement laws. INTERPRETATION: Rurality was associated with higher age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates, a higher proportion of unrestrained passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths, and lower seat belt use among adults in all census regions and regardless of state seat belt enforcement type. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: Seat belt use decreases and age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates increase with increasing levels of rurality. Improving seat belt use remains a critical strategy to reduce crash-related deaths in the United States, especially in rural areas where seat belt use is lower and age-adjusted death rates are higher than in urban areas. States and communities can consider using evidence-based interventions to reduce rural-urban disparities in seat belt use and passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates.

BACKGROUND: Each year >32,000 deaths and 2 million nonfatal injuries occur on U.S. roads. METHODS: CDC analyzed 2000 and 2013 data compiled by the World Health Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to determine the number and rate of motor vehicle crash deaths in the United States and 19 other high-income OECD countries and analyzed estimated seat belt use and the percentage of deaths that involved alcohol-impaired driving or speeding, by country. RESULTS: In 2013, the United States motor vehicle crash death rate of 10.3 per 100,000 population had decreased 31% from the rate in 2000; among the 19 comparison countries, the rate had declined an average of 56% during this time. Among all 20 countries, the United States had the highest rate of crash deaths per 100,000 population (10.3); the highest rate of crash deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles (1.24), and the fifth highest rate of motor vehicle crash deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (1.10). Among countries for which information on national seat belt use was available, the United States ranked 18th out of 20 for front seat use, and 13th out of 18 for rear seat use. Among 19 countries, the United States reported the second highest percentage of motor vehicle crash deaths involving alcohol-impaired driving (31%), and among 15, had the eighth highest percentage of crash deaths that involved speeding (29%). CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS: Motor vehicle injuries are predictable and preventable. Lower death rates in other high-income countries, as well as a high prevalence of risk factors in the United States, suggest that the United States can make more progress in reducing crash deaths. With a projected increase in U.S. crash deaths in 2015, the time is right to reassess U.S. progress and set new goals. By implementing effective strategies, including those that increase seat belt use and reduce alcohol-impaired driving and speeding, the United States can prevent thousands of motor vehicle crash-related injuries and deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars in direct medical costs every year.

Injuries kill more than 180 000 people each year in the USA—that’s 1 death every 3 minutes. Regardless of sex, race, or economic status, violence and injuries affect everyone. From ages 1~44, more Americans die from violence and injuries—such as motor vehicle crashes, falls or homicides—than from any other cause, including infectious and non-communicable diseases[1] (Fig 1). And injury deaths are only part of the picture. Millions of Americans are injured each year and survive. Many of them are faced with life-long health, social and financial problems. | | In 1985, the US National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recognized the need for a coordinated effort to prevent injuries in the United States[2]. They identified CDC as the federal agency best suited to lead injury research. CDC had a strong history of interdisciplinary research, data collection and analysis, information sharing, and relationships with states-elements the Research Council and IOM deemed important. And unlike other federal agencies involved in injury prevention, CDC had no regulatory or enforcement role. In 1997, the IOM Committee on Injury Prevention and Control recommended that no one agency could effectively serve as the sole leader for injury. Rather, agencies should collaborate in injury prevention and control activities, with each agency leading in its area of expertise. CDC’s Injury Center now functions as the focal point and lead agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services for preventing injuries.

PROBLEM: Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death among children. Age- and size-appropriate restraint use is an effective way to prevent motor vehicle-related injuries and deaths. However, children are not always properly restrained while riding in a motor vehicle, and some are not restrained at all, which increases their risk for injury and death in a crash. REPORTING PERIOD: 2005-2008. DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM: The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) is a multistate program facilitated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to probabilistically link police crash reports and hospital databases for traffic safety analyses. Eleven participating states (Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah) submitted data to CODES during the reporting period. Descriptive analysis was used to describe drivers and child passengers involved in motor vehicle crashes and to summarize crash and medical outcomes. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used to compare a child passenger's likelihood of sustaining specific types of injuries by restraint status (optimal, suboptimal, or unrestrained) and seating location (front or back seat). Because of data constraints, optimal restraint use was defined as a car seat or booster seat use for children aged 1-7 years and seat belt use for children aged 8-12 years. Suboptimal restraint use was defined as seat belt use for children aged 1-7 years. Unrestrained was defined as no use of car seat, booster seat, or seat belt for children aged 1-12 years. RESULTS: Optimal restraint use in the back seat declined with child's age (1 year: 95.9%, 5 years: 95.4%, 7 years: 94.7%, 8 years: 77.4%, 10 years: 67.5%, 12 years: 54.7%). Child restraint use was associated with driver restraint use; 41.3% of children riding with unrestrained drivers also were unrestrained compared with 2.2% of children riding with restrained drivers. Child restraint use also was associated with impaired driving due to alcohol or drug use; 16.4% children riding with drivers suspected of alcohol or drug use were unrestrained compared with 2.9% of children riding with drivers not suspected of such use. Optimally restrained and suboptimally restrained children were less likely to sustain a traumatic brain injury than unrestrained children. The 90th percentile hospital charges for children aged 4-7 years who were in motor vehicle crashes were $1,630.00 and $1,958.00 for those optimally restrained in a back seat and front seat, respectively; $2,035.91 and $3,696.00 for those suboptimally restrained in a back seat and front seat, respectively; and $9,956.60 and $11,143.85 for those unrestrained in a back seat and front seat, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Proper car seat, booster seat, and seat belt use among children in the back seat prevents injuries and deaths, as well as averts hospital charges. However, the number, severity, and cost of injuries among children in crashes who were not optimally restrained or who were seated in a front seat indicates the need for improvements in proper use of age- and size-appropriate car seats, booster seats, and seat belts in the back seat. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: Effective interventions for increasing proper child restraint use could be universally implemented by states and communities to prevent motor vehicle-related injuries among children and their resulting costs.

By 2030, it is estimated that one in five persons in the United States will be aged 65 or older.1 Although the vast majority of older adults prefer to age in place (grow old in their current homes), aging in place can present challenges, particularly when older adults begin to experience declines in mobility. Nearly 80% of older adults live in car-dependent suburban or rural communities, with most of these communities lacking alternative mobility options.2 Therefore, when older adults in these communities stop driving, they are left with few transportation options.3 To meet the transportation and mobility needs of aging populations, it will be necessary to have a clear understanding of when older adults expect to stop driving. The purpose of this study was to provide national prevalence estimates of the age at which older adults in the United States report they will stop driving. | Data were obtained from the Second Injury Control and Risk Survey, Phase 2, a cross-sectional, random-digit-dialed telephone survey that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted between March 2007 and May 2008. The study methodology has been detailed previously.4 This analysis was restricted to survey respondents aged 65 or older who reported being current drivers (N = 565). Information was collected on demographic characteristics, driving status, and views related to when they would stop driving. Nationally weighted estimates were calculated.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pediatricians' self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and dissemination practices regarding the new American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) child passenger safety (CPS) policy recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to pediatric primary care physicians via AAP e-mail distribution lists. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to current AAP CPS recommendations and the revised policy statement were ascertained. RESULTS: There were 718 respondents from 3497 physicians with active e-mail addresses, resulting in a 20.5% response rate, of which 533 were eligible based on the initial survey question. All 6 CPS knowledge and scenario-based items were answered correctly by 52.9% of the sample; these respondents were identified as the "high knowledge" group. Pediatricians with high knowledge were more likely to be female (P < .001), to have completed a pediatrics residency (vs medicine-pediatrics) (P = .03), and have a child between 4 and 7 years of age (P = .001). CPS information was distributed more frequently at routine health visits for patients 0-2 years of age vs those 4-12 years of age. Those with high knowledge were less likely to report several specific barriers to dissemination of CPS information, more likely to allot adequate time and discuss CPS with parents, and had greater confidence for topics related to all CPS topics. CONCLUSIONS: Although CPS knowledge is generally high among respondents, gaps in knowledge still exist. Knowledge is associated with attitudes, practices, barriers, and facilitators of CPS guideline dissemination. These results identify opportunities to increase knowledge and implement strategies to routinely disseminate CPS information in the primary care setting.