Different technologies have been developed to help parents and caregivers address pediatric vehicular heatstroke (PVH), or scenarios where a child dies from overheating in an unattended motor vehicle. In a new study, researchers from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) identified exemplar PVH scenarios that have occurred during recent years and studied the different technologies designed to prevent them from occurring. The study found that while certain technologies may be effective for different scenarios, no single technology is effective in preventing all the scenarios that lead to pediatric vehicular heatstroke, suggesting a combination of interventions is required to achieve the best prevention strategy.
The findings were recently published by the American Journal of Public Health.
Since 1998, more than 1,000 children have died due to PVH, with an average of 37 children in the United States each year. Since these are preventable deaths, in addition to continued awareness campaigns for caregivers, a variety of vehicle, child restraint, mobile-app and after-market technologies have been designed to help address this issue. These include indirect detection technologies (Bluetooth device connection, GPS-based reminders), direct detection technologies (pressure sensors and radio frequency sensors that detect breathing and heartbeat), alerting technology (warning chimes/noises, primary contacts notified) and intervention features (air conditioning on, doors unlocking).
To determine the effectiveness of these technological interventions, researchers at the Center for Injury Research and Prevention (CIRP) at CHOP, along with co-lead study author Emma Sartin, PhD, MPH now of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, systematically reviewed cases of children dying in hot vehicles to identify “exemplar” scenarios, or cases that were distinct from others in terms of circumstances, and whether the various technological interventions available would have prevented these deaths.
“When we considered the variety of scenarios in our study, we found that no single technology would have prevented all cases we identified,” said co-lead study author Jalaj Maheshwari, MSE, a research staff scientist with CIRP at CHOP. “This tragic situation can happen to anyone, and we feel that multiple technologies working in tandem are the best way to reduce the number of vehicular heatstroke deaths that occur. Members of the automotive industry recognize the threat to children’s safety that pediatric vehicular heatstroke poses, and we have seen these mitigating technologies being built into vehicles, which is encouraging progress.”
The researchers identified 10 exemplar scenarios across 354 recent instances of vehicular heatstroke and found that the technologies’ effectiveness varied drastically. For example, carbon dioxide, optical, pressure, ultrasonic, and radar/radio-frequency detection technologies would have been successful in detecting the children in 80% to 90% of cases, whereas child seat chest restraint sensors would have only protected children in one of the exemplar scenarios.
Notifying a secondary contact was the only technology that would have effectively brought intervention to every child across scenarios, assuming that the cases of overheating were due to children being left behind intentionally or unintentionally by caregivers, with a call to 911 or emergency medical services being the best-case scenario. Alerting by sounding the vehicle’s horn may also have been effective but only if the vehicle was in proximity to people who could intervene, which was not always the case. Leaving the air conditioning on in the car would have prevented 80% of cases identified.
The researchers noted that the study only focused on vehicular heatstroke deaths, the most serious cases, but did not investigate the potentially hundreds or thousands of “near miss” incidents that may put children at risk.
“We have a responsibility to children around the country for making sure these completely preventable deaths never happen,” said senior study author Kristy B. Arbogast, PhD, scientific director of CIRP at CHOP. “In addition to technology, we need to continue to make sure caregivers are educated about the real danger posed to children by overheating vehicles, and how quickly that danger can build. We need to ensure these life-saving technologies have the support of the automotive industry, policymakers and a variety of stakeholders who can make a difference.”
This study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF)-founded Center for Child Injury Prevention Studies (CChIPS) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and The Ohio State University (OSU).
Maheshwari et al, “Preventing Real-World Pediatric Vehicular Heatstroke Events With Technology.” Am J Public Health. Online June 18, 2025. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2025.308109.
Featured in this article
Experts
Specialties & Programs
Different technologies have been developed to help parents and caregivers address pediatric vehicular heatstroke (PVH), or scenarios where a child dies from overheating in an unattended motor vehicle. In a new study, researchers from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) identified exemplar PVH scenarios that have occurred during recent years and studied the different technologies designed to prevent them from occurring. The study found that while certain technologies may be effective for different scenarios, no single technology is effective in preventing all the scenarios that lead to pediatric vehicular heatstroke, suggesting a combination of interventions is required to achieve the best prevention strategy.
The findings were recently published by the American Journal of Public Health.
Since 1998, more than 1,000 children have died due to PVH, with an average of 37 children in the United States each year. Since these are preventable deaths, in addition to continued awareness campaigns for caregivers, a variety of vehicle, child restraint, mobile-app and after-market technologies have been designed to help address this issue. These include indirect detection technologies (Bluetooth device connection, GPS-based reminders), direct detection technologies (pressure sensors and radio frequency sensors that detect breathing and heartbeat), alerting technology (warning chimes/noises, primary contacts notified) and intervention features (air conditioning on, doors unlocking).
To determine the effectiveness of these technological interventions, researchers at the Center for Injury Research and Prevention (CIRP) at CHOP, along with co-lead study author Emma Sartin, PhD, MPH now of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, systematically reviewed cases of children dying in hot vehicles to identify “exemplar” scenarios, or cases that were distinct from others in terms of circumstances, and whether the various technological interventions available would have prevented these deaths.
“When we considered the variety of scenarios in our study, we found that no single technology would have prevented all cases we identified,” said co-lead study author Jalaj Maheshwari, MSE, a research staff scientist with CIRP at CHOP. “This tragic situation can happen to anyone, and we feel that multiple technologies working in tandem are the best way to reduce the number of vehicular heatstroke deaths that occur. Members of the automotive industry recognize the threat to children’s safety that pediatric vehicular heatstroke poses, and we have seen these mitigating technologies being built into vehicles, which is encouraging progress.”
The researchers identified 10 exemplar scenarios across 354 recent instances of vehicular heatstroke and found that the technologies’ effectiveness varied drastically. For example, carbon dioxide, optical, pressure, ultrasonic, and radar/radio-frequency detection technologies would have been successful in detecting the children in 80% to 90% of cases, whereas child seat chest restraint sensors would have only protected children in one of the exemplar scenarios.
Notifying a secondary contact was the only technology that would have effectively brought intervention to every child across scenarios, assuming that the cases of overheating were due to children being left behind intentionally or unintentionally by caregivers, with a call to 911 or emergency medical services being the best-case scenario. Alerting by sounding the vehicle’s horn may also have been effective but only if the vehicle was in proximity to people who could intervene, which was not always the case. Leaving the air conditioning on in the car would have prevented 80% of cases identified.
The researchers noted that the study only focused on vehicular heatstroke deaths, the most serious cases, but did not investigate the potentially hundreds or thousands of “near miss” incidents that may put children at risk.
“We have a responsibility to children around the country for making sure these completely preventable deaths never happen,” said senior study author Kristy B. Arbogast, PhD, scientific director of CIRP at CHOP. “In addition to technology, we need to continue to make sure caregivers are educated about the real danger posed to children by overheating vehicles, and how quickly that danger can build. We need to ensure these life-saving technologies have the support of the automotive industry, policymakers and a variety of stakeholders who can make a difference.”
This study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF)-founded Center for Child Injury Prevention Studies (CChIPS) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and The Ohio State University (OSU).
Maheshwari et al, “Preventing Real-World Pediatric Vehicular Heatstroke Events With Technology.” Am J Public Health. Online June 18, 2025. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2025.308109.
Recommended reading
Car safety: Heat stroke prevention
Heat stroke can occur if a child is left unattended in a vehicle, even on a mild day. Find helpful tips on how to protect your child against heat stroke.
As Summer Heats Up, CHOP Researchers Study Caregiver Attitudes Toward Pediatric Vehicular Heatstroke
While those who were thought to put children at risk were viewed negatively, a large number of caregivers supported education efforts and technology use to reduce heatstroke risk.
Contact us
Ben Leach
Center for Injury Research and Prevention (CIRP)