Applying the Health Belief Model to mobile device distracted driving

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 ERGONOMICS Journal of Safety Research Pub Date : 2024-09-29 DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2024.09.014
Aimee E. Cox, Jessica B. Cicchino, Ian J. Reagan, David S. Zuby
{"title":"Applying the Health Belief Model to mobile device distracted driving","authors":"Aimee E. Cox,&nbsp;Jessica B. Cicchino,&nbsp;Ian J. Reagan,&nbsp;David S. Zuby","doi":"10.1016/j.jsr.2024.09.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div><em>Introduction:</em> The advancement of mobile devices has resulted in constant connectivity, but at the expense of traffic safety. The goal of this study was to apply the Health Belief Model to understand the barriers preventing drivers from driving without manipulating their devices, and what they perceived would motivate them to stop driving distracted. <em>Methods:</em> We conducted a nationwide survey of 2,013 U.S. licensed drivers. Participants indicated how much they agreed with or supported 63 statements and concepts pertaining to the Health Belief Model constructs of threats, barriers, benefits, and cues to action related to manipulating devices while driving. Heath Belief Model constructs were compared between distracted drivers, or those who regularly did (during most or all drives in the previous 30 days) one or more mobile device tasks, and non-distracted drivers. Logistic regression evaluated the relationship between Health Belief Model constructs and distracted driver designation. <em>Results:</em> Those who agreed more with threats (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27, 2.04) and disagreed more with barriers to stopping (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.31, 0.41) were more likely to not drive distracted. We identified distracted drivers’ top barriers to avoiding cellphone distractions, as well as barrier categories that were significantly greater for distracted drivers than non-distracted drivers. Distracted drivers felt most strongly that intrapersonal, interpersonal, and policy cues would motivate behavior termination, and more support of technological countermeasures was associated with regularly driving distracted after controlling for support for policy and organizational countermeasures. <em>Conclusions:</em> Simultaneously increasing threat perceptions, targeting the top barriers identified, and implementing policy-, interpersonal-, and technological-based countermeasures may encourage device-free driving. <em>Practical Applications:</em> When designing interventions or programs, state highway safety offices should find new ways to increase threat perceptions and offer solutions to the barriers most cited by distracted drivers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Safety Research","volume":"91 ","pages":"Pages 294-302"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Safety Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437524001336","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The advancement of mobile devices has resulted in constant connectivity, but at the expense of traffic safety. The goal of this study was to apply the Health Belief Model to understand the barriers preventing drivers from driving without manipulating their devices, and what they perceived would motivate them to stop driving distracted. Methods: We conducted a nationwide survey of 2,013 U.S. licensed drivers. Participants indicated how much they agreed with or supported 63 statements and concepts pertaining to the Health Belief Model constructs of threats, barriers, benefits, and cues to action related to manipulating devices while driving. Heath Belief Model constructs were compared between distracted drivers, or those who regularly did (during most or all drives in the previous 30 days) one or more mobile device tasks, and non-distracted drivers. Logistic regression evaluated the relationship between Health Belief Model constructs and distracted driver designation. Results: Those who agreed more with threats (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27, 2.04) and disagreed more with barriers to stopping (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.31, 0.41) were more likely to not drive distracted. We identified distracted drivers’ top barriers to avoiding cellphone distractions, as well as barrier categories that were significantly greater for distracted drivers than non-distracted drivers. Distracted drivers felt most strongly that intrapersonal, interpersonal, and policy cues would motivate behavior termination, and more support of technological countermeasures was associated with regularly driving distracted after controlling for support for policy and organizational countermeasures. Conclusions: Simultaneously increasing threat perceptions, targeting the top barriers identified, and implementing policy-, interpersonal-, and technological-based countermeasures may encourage device-free driving. Practical Applications: When designing interventions or programs, state highway safety offices should find new ways to increase threat perceptions and offer solutions to the barriers most cited by distracted drivers.
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
将健康信念模型应用于移动设备分心驾驶
简介移动设备的进步带来了持续的连接性,但却牺牲了交通安全。本研究的目的是应用健康信念模型来了解阻碍驾驶员在不操作设备的情况下开车的障碍,以及他们认为哪些因素会促使他们停止分心驾驶。研究方法我们在全国范围内对 2,013 名美国持证驾驶员进行了调查。受访者表示了他们对 63 项陈述和概念的同意或支持程度,这些陈述和概念涉及健康信念模型的威胁、障碍、益处和行动提示,与驾驶时操作设备有关。对分心驾驶者或经常(在过去 30 天的大部分或全部驾驶过程中)执行一项或多项移动设备任务的驾驶者与非分心驾驶者之间的健康信念模式构建进行了比较。Logistic 回归评估了健康信念模型构建与分心驾驶者指定之间的关系。结果显示更同意威胁(几率比 [OR],1.61;95% 置信区间 [CI],1.27, 2.04)和更不同意停车障碍(OR,0.36;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.31, 0.41)的人更有可能不分心驾驶。我们确定了分心驾驶者避免手机分心的最大障碍,以及分心驾驶者明显大于非分心驾驶者的障碍类别。分心驾驶者最强烈地感受到人际、人际关系和政策线索会促使其行为终止,在控制了对政策和组织对策的支持后,对技术对策的更多支持与经常分心驾驶有关。最后得出结论:同时提高威胁感知、针对所发现的主要障碍以及实施基于政策、人际和技术的对策,可能会鼓励无设备驾驶。实际应用:各州公路安全办公室在设计干预措施或项目时,应寻找新的方法来提高威胁感知,并针对分心驾驶者提到最多的障碍提供解决方案。
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
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
174
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Safety Research is an interdisciplinary publication that provides for the exchange of ideas and scientific evidence capturing studies through research in all areas of safety and health, including traffic, workplace, home, and community. This forum invites research using rigorous methodologies, encourages translational research, and engages the global scientific community through various partnerships (e.g., this outreach includes highlighting some of the latest findings from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
期刊最新文献
Trends in parcel delivery driver injury: Evidence from NEISS-Work Prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed U.S. workers within the Construction sector, 2010–2019 Safety climate and fatigue have differential impacts on safety issues Great to use as a conversation starter: End user views on the acceptability and feasibility of a prototype decision aid for older drivers Investigating perspectives towards online content that promotes road safety: A qualitative study across three age groups
×
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