2007 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey: Use of and Support for Emergency Medical Services Systems [Traffic Safety Facts]

NHTSA · 2009 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This research note, published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2009, analyzes data from the 2007 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey (MVOSS) to assess public attitudes toward and usage of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems. The study aims to provide decision-makers with insights into public support for EMS funding and understanding of emergency call technologies. The MVOSS is a national telephone survey administered periodically to randomly selected individuals aged 16 and older across the United States, with oversampling of younger adults to capture specific behavioral trends. The 2007 administration involved approximately 6,000 respondents per questionnaire, with Questionnaire 2 specifically addressing EMS, driver education, and wireless phone use. The findings reveal that 44% of the population aged 16 and older had personally called 9-1-1 or another emergency number, with females and African-Americans more likely to have done so than males and Whites, respectively. While landlines remained the primary method for emergency calls (64%), wireless phone usage accounted for one-third of calls, increasing to 43% for calls made within the past month. Public understanding of emergency call technology was limited; 42% of respondents were unsure if call centers could automatically identify a cell phone number, and 43% were unsure about location identification. Rural residents were notably less confident in these capabilities compared to urban and suburban residents. Regarding the value of EMS, the majority of respondents viewed emergency medical services as equally important (63%) or more important (31%) than police services, and equally important (76%) or more important (18%) than fire department services. Only 3% considered EMS less important than either police or fire services. This perception of importance was consistent regardless of whether respondents had previously called 9-1-1 or the specific service they requested. Furthermore, the public demonstrated strong financial support for EMS improvements. Overall, 58% were willing to pay more for 9-1-1 call services to improve caller location speed, and 63% were willing to pay more for the EMS system to enhance equipment and training. Willingness to pay increased with household income, though majorities in all income brackets supported additional funding. Among those willing to pay more, the most common contribution amount was $5 to $10 annually, with higher-income groups more likely to support contributions exceeding $20. The study concludes that a significant portion of the public has direct experience with emergency services, views EMS as a critical community resource comparable to or exceeding police and fire services, and is willing to increase financial contributions to support system improvements. These findings suggest strong public backing for EMS funding strategies and highlight a need for better public education regarding the technical capabilities of 9-1-1 call centers, particularly concerning wireless phone location and identification.

Key finding

Forty-four percent of the population has called an emergency number, and the majority of respondents consider emergency medical services at least as important as police and fire services while expressing willingness to pay more for these systems.

Methodology

survey

Sample size: 6010

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• incidence prevalence

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence