Citation

Joseph B, Haider A, Hassan A, Kulvatunyou N, Bains S, Tang A, Zangbar B, Oʼkeeffe T, Vercruysse G, Gries L, Rhee P. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016; 81(1): 144-148.

Affiliation

Division of Trauma, Critical Care, Burns, and Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)

DOI

10.1097/TA.0000000000001022

PMID

26953757

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and nonfatal injury among young adults. The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude of distracted driving (DD) among students and to examine the effectiveness of awareness campaign against DD. We hypothesized that DD is prevalent among students and educational efforts such as distracted driving awareness campaign can effectively reduce it.

METHODS: This study was conducted within the University of Arizona that has a student enrollment of 42,000 students. We conducted our prospective interventional study in four phases at the University campus. Phase one: 1 week pre-intervention observation, phase two: 1 week intervention, phase three: 1 week post-intervention observation, and phase 4: 1 week 6 month post-intervention observation. We used a combination of emails, pamphlets, interactive sessions, and banners as intervention tools in student union. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of DD pre, post, and 6 months post intervention.

RESULTS: A total of 47,764 observations (Pre: 14,844, Post: 17,939, 6-months Post: 14,981) were performed. During the study period, overall rate of distracted driving rate among the students was 8.8±5.4 per 100 drivers (Texting; 4.8±3.7 per 100 drivers, Talking; 3.9±2.0 per 100 drivers).The baseline rate of DD among students during the phase one was 9.0 ± 1.2 per 100 drivers (Texting: 4.8 ± 1.7 per 100 drivers, Talking: 4.1 ± 1.1 per 100 drivers). Following intervention, there was a 32% significant reduction in overall DD (9.0 ± 1.2 vs. 6.1 ± 1.7, p<0.001) in the immediate post intervention phase however, the rate of DD returned to baseline at 6-month post-intervention and trended towards increase (9.0 ± 1.2 vs. 11.1 ± 8.4, p=0.34).

CONCLUSION: Distracted driving is prevalent among university students. Following a comprehensive preventive campaign against distracted driving, there was a 32% reduction in the rate of distracted driving in the immediate post-intervention. However, a single episode of intervention did not have a sustainable preventive effect on the DD and the rate increased to the baseline at 6-month follow up. Targeting DD with a successful injury prevention campaign with repeated boosters may decrease its prevalence among the students. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, interventional study.

Keywords: Driver distraction

Language: en