The Dangers of Distracted Driving: A Substudy of Patient Perception Data From the DRIVSAFE Observational Study.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1097/BOT.0000000000002875
{"title":"The Dangers of Distracted Driving: A Substudy of Patient Perception Data From the DRIVSAFE Observational Study.","authors":"","doi":"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine how fracture clinic patients perceive the dangers of distracted driving.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong></p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Analysis of patient perception subset data from the original DRIVSAFE study; a large, multicenter cross-sectional study, surveying fracture clinic patients about distracted driving.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Four Level 1 Canadian trauma center fracture clinics.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>English-speaking patients with a valid Canadian driver's license and a traumatic musculoskeletal injury sustained in the past 6 months.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and comparisons: </strong>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 (ORs). A regression analysis was performed to identify associations with unsafe driving perceptions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 1378 patients, 749 (54.3%) male and 614 (44.6%) female. The average age was 45.8 ± 17.0 years (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 that 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% confidence interval (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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":16644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11398289/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002875","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine how fracture clinic patients perceive the dangers of distracted driving.

Methods:

Design: Analysis of patient perception subset data from the original DRIVSAFE study; a large, multicenter 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 6 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 (ORs). A regression analysis was performed to identify associations with unsafe driving perceptions.

Results: The study included 1378 patients, 749 (54.3%) male and 614 (44.6%) female. The average age was 45.8 ± 17.0 years (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 that 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% confidence interval (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.

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: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分心驾驶的危险:DRIVSAFE 观察研究》患者感知数据子研究。
目的确定骨折诊所患者如何看待分心驾驶的危险:设计:分析 DRIVSAFE 原始研究中的患者感知子集数据;这是一项大型多中心横断面研究,调查骨折诊所患者对分心驾驶的看法:四家加拿大一级创伤中心骨折诊所:患者选择标准:讲英语、持有有效加拿大驾照、在过去六个月中受过创伤性肌肉骨骼损伤的患者:主要结果是患者对驾驶分心的安全评级。根据最初的 DRIVSAFE 研究,利用患者的问卷答复和已公布的碰撞风险几率比 (OR) 将患者分为容易分心和厌恶分心两类。研究还进行了回归分析,以确定与不安全驾驶认知之间的关联:研究包括 1378 名患者,其中男性 749 人(54.3%),女性 614 人(44.6%)。平均年龄为 45.8 岁 ± 17.0(16-87 岁不等)。92.9%(1242/1337)的患者认为发送电子信息不安全,81.2%(1086/1337)的患者认为阅读电子信息不安全。约四分之三的患者认为用手持移动电话拨打电话(78.9%,1061/1344)和接听电话(74.8%,998/1335)不安全。然而,31.0%(421/1356)的患者认为他们在打电话时的驾驶能力没有差异,而 13.1%(175/1340)的患者表示发短信时的驾驶能力没有差异。年龄较小(OR,0.93 [95% CI 0.90-0.96],p结论:容易分心与不安全驾驶认知之间存在明显联系,容易分心的驾驶者认为分心驾驶是安全驾驶的可能性是容易分心的驾驶者的3.8倍。这一信息可能会影响未来教育工作的适当实施和内容,以改变对驾驶分心的看法,从而减少分心驾驶:证据等级:三级。有关证据等级的完整描述,请参见 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and management of hard and soft tissue trauma, including injuries to bone, muscle, ligament, and tendons, as well as spinal cord injuries. Under the guidance of a distinguished international board of editors, the journal provides the most current information on diagnostic techniques, new and improved surgical instruments and procedures, surgical implants and prosthetic devices, bioplastics and biometals; and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
Outpatient Upper Extremity Fracture Surgery Is Associated with Increased Post-operative Emergency Department Visits. Lower Extremity Trauma is Associated With an Increased Rate of New Mental Disorder Diagnosis and Suicide Attempt. The Dangers of Distracted Driving: A Substudy of Patient Perception Data From the DRIVSAFE Observational Study. Heritable Thrombophilia and Increased Risk for Venous Thromboembolism Despite Thromboprophylaxis After Pelvis or Acetabulum Fracture. Timing of radiographic healing for distal femur fractures treated with intramedullary nails.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1