SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Ning P, Xie C, Cheng P, Li L, Schwebel DC, Yang Y, He J, Li J, Hu G. BMC Public Health 2024; 24(1): e241.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group - BMC)

DOI

10.1186/s12889-024-17756-y

PMID

38245693

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple distraction indicators have been applied to measure street-crossing distraction but their validities in predicting pedestrian safety are poorly understood.

METHODS: Based on a video-based observational study, we compared the validity of four commonly used distraction indicators (total duration of distraction while crossing a street, proportion of distracted time over total street-crossing time, duration of the longest distraction time, and total number of distractions) in predicting three pedestrian safety outcomes (near-crash incidence, frequency of looking left and right, and speed crossing the street) across three types of distraction (mobile phone use, talking to other pedestrians, eating/drinking/smoking). Change in Harrell's C statistic was calculated to assess the validity of each distraction indicator based on multivariable regression models including only covariates and including both covariates and the distraction indicator.

RESULTS: Heterogeneous capacities in predicting the three safety outcomes across the four distraction indicators were observed: 1) duration of the longest distraction time was most predictive for the occurrence of near-crashes and looks left and right among pedestrians with all three types of distraction combined and talking with other pedestrians (Harrell's C statistic changes ranged from 0.0310 to 0.0335, Pā€‰<ā€‰0.05), and for the occurrence of near-crashes for pedestrians involving mobile phone use (Harrell's C statistic change: 0.0053); 2) total duration of distraction was most predictive for speed crossing the street among pedestrians with the combination and each of the three types of distraction (Harrell's C statistic changes ranged from 0.0037 to 0.0111, Pā€‰<ā€‰0.05), frequency of looking left and right among pedestrians distracted by mobile phone use (Harrell's C statistic change: 0.0115), and the occurrence of near-crash among pedestrians eating, drinking, or smoking (Harrell's C statistic change: 0.0119); and 3) the total number of distractions was the most predictive indicator of frequency of looking left and right among pedestrians eating, drinking, or smoking (Harrell's C statistic change: 0.0013). Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust to change in grouping criteria of the four distraction indicators.

CONCLUSIONS: Future research should consider the pedestrian safety outcomes and type of distractions to select the best distraction indicator.


Language: en

Keywords

Safety; Pedestrian; Indicator; Predictive validity; Street-crossing distraction

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print