@article{ref1,
title="The dangers of distracted driving: a substudy of patient perception data from the",
journal="Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma",
year="2024",
author="Marko, Gjorgjievski and Bradley, Petrisor and Dale, Williams and Matthew, Denkers and Krishan, Rajaratnum and Herman, Johal and Jamal, Al-Asiri and Harman, Chaudhry and Aaron, Nauth and Jeremy, Hall and Daniel, Whelan and Sarah, Ward and Amit, Atrey and Amir, Khoshbin and Ross, Leighton and Mark, Glazebrook and Catherine, Coady and Michael, Biddulph and Joel, Morash and Gerald, Reardon and William, Oxner and Chad, Coles and James, Trenholm and Michael, Dunbar and Glen, C. Richardson and Ivan, Wong and Andrew, Glennie and David, Johnston and Paul, Duffy and Prism, Schneider and Robert, Korley and Richard, Buckley and Ryan, Martin and Lauren, Beals and Cameron, Elgie and Lydia, Ginsberg and Yasna, Mehdian and Paula, McKay and Nicole, Simunovic and Jenna, Ratcliffe and Sheila, Sprague and Silvia, Li and Milena, Vicente and Taryn, Scott and Jennifer, Hidy and Paril, Suthar and Tanja, Harrison and Kaitlyn, Dillabough and Stephanie, Yee and Alisha, Garibaldi and Kelly, Trask and Catherine, O'Connor and Mohit, Bhandari and Bill, Ristevski",
volume="ePub",
number="ePub",
pages="ePub-ePub",
abstract="OBJECTIVE: To determine how fracture clinic patients perceive the dangers of distracted driving. <br><br>METHODS: Design: Analysis of patient perception subset data from the original DRIVSAFE study; a large, multi-center cross-sectional study, surveying fracture clinic patients about distracted driving. SETTING: Four level 1 Canadian trauma center fracture clinics. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: English-speaking patients with a valid Canadian driver's license and a traumatic musculoskeletal injury sustained in the past six months. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Primary outcome was patients' safety ratings of driving distractions. As per the original DRIVSAFE study, patients were categorized as distraction-prone or distraction-averse using their questionnaire responses and published crash-risk odds ratios (OR). A regression analysis was performed to identify associations with unsafe driving perceptions. <br><br>RESULTS: The study included 1378 patients, 749 (54.3%) male and 614 (44.6%) female. The average age was 45.8 years old ± 17.0 (range 16-87). Sending electronic messages was perceived as unsafe by 92.9% (1242/1337) of patients, while reading them was seen as unsafe by 81.2% (1086/1337). Approximately three-quarters of patients viewed making (78.9%, 1061/1344) and accepting (74.8%, 998/1335) calls on handheld mobile phones as unsafe. However, 31.0% (421/1356) of patients believed they had no differences in their driving ability when talking on the phone while 13.1% (175/1340) reported no driving differences when texting. Younger age (OR, 0.93 [95% CI 0.90-0.96], p<0.001), driving experience (OR, 1.06 [95% CI 1.02-1.09], p<0.001), and distraction-prone drivers (OR, 3.79 [95% CI 2.91-4.94], p<0.001) were associated with unsafe driving perceptions. <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear association between being prone to distractions and unsafe driving perceptions, with distraction-prone drivers being 3.8 times more likely to perceive driving distractions as safe. This information could potentially influence the appropriate delivery and content of future educational efforts to change the perception of driving distractions and thereby reduce distracted driving. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0890-5339",
doi="10.1097/BOT.0000000000002875",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002875"
}