Injury prevention programs against distracted driving

Are they effective?

Bellal Joseph, Bardiya Zangbar, Sandeep Bains, Narong Kulvatunyou, Mazhar Khalil, Dalal Mahmoud, Randall S. Friese, Terence OKeeffe, Viraj Pandit, Peter Rhee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Distracted driving (talking and/or texting) is a growing public safety problem, with increasing incidence among adult drivers. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of distracted driving (DD) among health care providers and to create awareness against DD. We hypothesized that distracted driving is prevalent among health care providers and a preventive campaign against distracted driving would effectively decrease distracted driving among health care providers. Methods: We performed a 4-phase prospective interventional study of all health care providers at our level 1 trauma center. Phase 1: one week of pre-intervention observation; phase 2: one week of intervention; phase 3: one week of postintervention observation; and phase 4: one week of 6 months of postintervention observation. Observations were performed outside employee parking garage at the following time intervals: 6:30–8:30 a.m., 4:40–5:30 p.m., and 6:30–7:30 p.m. Intervention included an e-mail survey, pamphlets and banners in the hospital cafeteria, and a postintervention survey. Hospital employees were identified with badges and scrubs, employees exiting through employee gate, and parking pass on the car. Outcome measure was incidence of DD pre, post, and 6 months postintervention. Results: A total of 15,416 observations (pre: 6,639, post: 4,220, 6 months post: 4,557) and 520 survey responses were collected. The incident of DD was 11.8% among health care providers. There was a significant reduction in DD in each time interval of observation between pre- and postintervention. On subanalysis, there was a significant decrease in talking (P =.0001) and texting (P =.01) while driving postintervention compared to pre-intervention. In the survey, 35.5% of respondents admitted to DD and 4.5% respondents were involved in an accident due to DD. We found that 77% respondents felt more informed after the survey and 91% respondents supported a state legislation against DD. The reduction in the incidence of DD postintervention was sustained even at 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: There was a 32% reduction in the incidence of distracted driving postintervention, which remained low even at 6-month follow-up. Implementation of an effective injury prevention campaign could reduce the incidence of distracted driving nationally.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)460-464
Number of pages5
JournalTraffic Injury Prevention
Volume17
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 3 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health care
incidence
health care
Personnel
Wounds and Injuries
employee
Health Personnel
campaign
Parking
Incidence
Observation
mail survey
Text Messaging
e-mail
Accidents
Railroad cars
trauma
Distracted Driving
incident
accident

Keywords

  • distracted driving; educational campaign; texting and driving; talking and driving

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Safety Research
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Joseph, B., Zangbar, B., Bains, S., Kulvatunyou, N., Khalil, M., Mahmoud, D., ... Rhee, P. (2016). Injury prevention programs against distracted driving: Are they effective? Traffic Injury Prevention, 17(5), 460-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2015.1116042

Injury prevention programs against distracted driving : Are they effective? / Joseph, Bellal; Zangbar, Bardiya; Bains, Sandeep; Kulvatunyou, Narong; Khalil, Mazhar; Mahmoud, Dalal; Friese, Randall S.; OKeeffe, Terence; Pandit, Viraj; Rhee, Peter.

In: Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 5, 03.07.2016, p. 460-464.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Joseph, B, Zangbar, B, Bains, S, Kulvatunyou, N, Khalil, M, Mahmoud, D, Friese, RS, OKeeffe, T, Pandit, V & Rhee, P 2016, 'Injury prevention programs against distracted driving: Are they effective?', Traffic Injury Prevention, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 460-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2015.1116042
Joseph B, Zangbar B, Bains S, Kulvatunyou N, Khalil M, Mahmoud D et al. Injury prevention programs against distracted driving: Are they effective? Traffic Injury Prevention. 2016 Jul 3;17(5):460-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2015.1116042
Joseph, Bellal ; Zangbar, Bardiya ; Bains, Sandeep ; Kulvatunyou, Narong ; Khalil, Mazhar ; Mahmoud, Dalal ; Friese, Randall S. ; OKeeffe, Terence ; Pandit, Viraj ; Rhee, Peter. / Injury prevention programs against distracted driving : Are they effective?. In: Traffic Injury Prevention. 2016 ; Vol. 17, No. 5. pp. 460-464.
@article{ea113da040db441b8f91e456d6b8c1d4,
title = "Injury prevention programs against distracted driving: Are they effective?",
abstract = "Introduction: Distracted driving (talking and/or texting) is a growing public safety problem, with increasing incidence among adult drivers. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of distracted driving (DD) among health care providers and to create awareness against DD. We hypothesized that distracted driving is prevalent among health care providers and a preventive campaign against distracted driving would effectively decrease distracted driving among health care providers. Methods: We performed a 4-phase prospective interventional study of all health care providers at our level 1 trauma center. Phase 1: one week of pre-intervention observation; phase 2: one week of intervention; phase 3: one week of postintervention observation; and phase 4: one week of 6 months of postintervention observation. Observations were performed outside employee parking garage at the following time intervals: 6:30–8:30 a.m., 4:40–5:30 p.m., and 6:30–7:30 p.m. Intervention included an e-mail survey, pamphlets and banners in the hospital cafeteria, and a postintervention survey. Hospital employees were identified with badges and scrubs, employees exiting through employee gate, and parking pass on the car. Outcome measure was incidence of DD pre, post, and 6 months postintervention. Results: A total of 15,416 observations (pre: 6,639, post: 4,220, 6 months post: 4,557) and 520 survey responses were collected. The incident of DD was 11.8{\%} among health care providers. There was a significant reduction in DD in each time interval of observation between pre- and postintervention. On subanalysis, there was a significant decrease in talking (P =.0001) and texting (P =.01) while driving postintervention compared to pre-intervention. In the survey, 35.5{\%} of respondents admitted to DD and 4.5{\%} respondents were involved in an accident due to DD. We found that 77{\%} respondents felt more informed after the survey and 91{\%} respondents supported a state legislation against DD. The reduction in the incidence of DD postintervention was sustained even at 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: There was a 32{\%} reduction in the incidence of distracted driving postintervention, which remained low even at 6-month follow-up. Implementation of an effective injury prevention campaign could reduce the incidence of distracted driving nationally.",
keywords = "distracted driving; educational campaign; texting and driving; talking and driving",
author = "Bellal Joseph and Bardiya Zangbar and Sandeep Bains and Narong Kulvatunyou and Mazhar Khalil and Dalal Mahmoud and Friese, {Randall S.} and Terence OKeeffe and Viraj Pandit and Peter Rhee",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/15389588.2015.1116042",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "460--464",
journal = "Traffic Injury Prevention",
issn = "1538-9588",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Injury prevention programs against distracted driving

T2 - Are they effective?

AU - Joseph, Bellal

AU - Zangbar, Bardiya

AU - Bains, Sandeep

AU - Kulvatunyou, Narong

AU - Khalil, Mazhar

AU - Mahmoud, Dalal

AU - Friese, Randall S.

AU - OKeeffe, Terence

AU - Pandit, Viraj

AU - Rhee, Peter

PY - 2016/7/3

Y1 - 2016/7/3

N2 - Introduction: Distracted driving (talking and/or texting) is a growing public safety problem, with increasing incidence among adult drivers. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of distracted driving (DD) among health care providers and to create awareness against DD. We hypothesized that distracted driving is prevalent among health care providers and a preventive campaign against distracted driving would effectively decrease distracted driving among health care providers. Methods: We performed a 4-phase prospective interventional study of all health care providers at our level 1 trauma center. Phase 1: one week of pre-intervention observation; phase 2: one week of intervention; phase 3: one week of postintervention observation; and phase 4: one week of 6 months of postintervention observation. Observations were performed outside employee parking garage at the following time intervals: 6:30–8:30 a.m., 4:40–5:30 p.m., and 6:30–7:30 p.m. Intervention included an e-mail survey, pamphlets and banners in the hospital cafeteria, and a postintervention survey. Hospital employees were identified with badges and scrubs, employees exiting through employee gate, and parking pass on the car. Outcome measure was incidence of DD pre, post, and 6 months postintervention. Results: A total of 15,416 observations (pre: 6,639, post: 4,220, 6 months post: 4,557) and 520 survey responses were collected. The incident of DD was 11.8% among health care providers. There was a significant reduction in DD in each time interval of observation between pre- and postintervention. On subanalysis, there was a significant decrease in talking (P =.0001) and texting (P =.01) while driving postintervention compared to pre-intervention. In the survey, 35.5% of respondents admitted to DD and 4.5% respondents were involved in an accident due to DD. We found that 77% respondents felt more informed after the survey and 91% respondents supported a state legislation against DD. The reduction in the incidence of DD postintervention was sustained even at 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: There was a 32% reduction in the incidence of distracted driving postintervention, which remained low even at 6-month follow-up. Implementation of an effective injury prevention campaign could reduce the incidence of distracted driving nationally.

AB - Introduction: Distracted driving (talking and/or texting) is a growing public safety problem, with increasing incidence among adult drivers. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of distracted driving (DD) among health care providers and to create awareness against DD. We hypothesized that distracted driving is prevalent among health care providers and a preventive campaign against distracted driving would effectively decrease distracted driving among health care providers. Methods: We performed a 4-phase prospective interventional study of all health care providers at our level 1 trauma center. Phase 1: one week of pre-intervention observation; phase 2: one week of intervention; phase 3: one week of postintervention observation; and phase 4: one week of 6 months of postintervention observation. Observations were performed outside employee parking garage at the following time intervals: 6:30–8:30 a.m., 4:40–5:30 p.m., and 6:30–7:30 p.m. Intervention included an e-mail survey, pamphlets and banners in the hospital cafeteria, and a postintervention survey. Hospital employees were identified with badges and scrubs, employees exiting through employee gate, and parking pass on the car. Outcome measure was incidence of DD pre, post, and 6 months postintervention. Results: A total of 15,416 observations (pre: 6,639, post: 4,220, 6 months post: 4,557) and 520 survey responses were collected. The incident of DD was 11.8% among health care providers. There was a significant reduction in DD in each time interval of observation between pre- and postintervention. On subanalysis, there was a significant decrease in talking (P =.0001) and texting (P =.01) while driving postintervention compared to pre-intervention. In the survey, 35.5% of respondents admitted to DD and 4.5% respondents were involved in an accident due to DD. We found that 77% respondents felt more informed after the survey and 91% respondents supported a state legislation against DD. The reduction in the incidence of DD postintervention was sustained even at 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: There was a 32% reduction in the incidence of distracted driving postintervention, which remained low even at 6-month follow-up. Implementation of an effective injury prevention campaign could reduce the incidence of distracted driving nationally.

KW - distracted driving; educational campaign; texting and driving; talking and driving

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84974822294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84974822294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15389588.2015.1116042

DO - 10.1080/15389588.2015.1116042

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 460

EP - 464

JO - Traffic Injury Prevention

JF - Traffic Injury Prevention

SN - 1538-9588

IS - 5

ER -