Deliverable D 1.3 RESULTS OF META-ANALYSIS ... - cast-eu.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Campaigns and awareness raising strategies in traffic safety — Deliverable D-1.1important aspects of campaign content are associated with campaignoutcome. Specifically, we could not consider how the use of emotion,addressing the social norm, or identifying and consulting a target groupaffected campaign outcome on accidents. Neither could we consider the fullrange of delivery channels, although we consider that the most important arecaptured in some way in the final model. Some delivery channels, such asposters, were not captured because we they were simply too difficult toclassify. In summary then, there are important aspects about the delivery andcontent of the campaign that are not accounted for in the final accident model.Notwithstanding these reservations, and making the assumptions described insection 8.1.1, we conclude the following. Campaigns with a drink-drive themetend to have larger reduction in accident counts. Campaigns of duration nolonger than one month are also associated with greater reductions, thoughthis result should be treated with caution since it is based on seven effects.Delivery of the campaign message at the roadside, using a billboard, fixed orvariable message sign, is also associated with accident reduction. There issome support for previous findings that personal influence and enforcementare associated with increased accident reductions. These associations werein the expected direction and close to significance. Recent campaigns appearto have been less effective than earlier ones, and use of combined massmediachannels is associated with less favourable accident outcomes in ourmodel. Checks of the model for various potential problems indicate that it isrobust, although a split-half analysis of the data was inconclusive.We now turn to consider what influences the effect of campaigns on seatbeltuse.8.3 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPAIGN EFFECT ONSEATBELT USEUsing the process described in section 8.2, 22 variables were chosen ascandidates for the explanation of variance in seatbelt effects (Table 8.3).The variable [limited area] was introduced to control for the findings in chapter7, that there appeared to be several effective small-scale seatbelt campaignsin the database, along with observations that many campaigns targeted a‘captive audiences’, by targeting the campaigns within very limited areas, suchas car parks, drive-in, hospital or other organisations. This variable wasclassified as a deliverable variable that was distinct from [scale-local], to whichit did not correlate strongly.The model was developed by considering statistical properties of eachvariable, in the following way. Variables with too many missing values wereexcluded such that all remaining variables had a maximum of seven missingvalues. [Social norm], [target consulted], [risk of detection] and [emotional andrational] were excluded on this basis. [Shocking consequences] was excludedbecause there were only five seatbelt use effects reported for campaignsexplicitly using shocking content. Again important variables had to beexcluded that could have important influences on campaign outcomes.106
Campaigns and awareness raising strategies in traffic safety — Deliverable D-1.1Table 8.3. Candidate variables for the explanation of campaign effects on seatbelt use. Eachis categorical, apart from [initial seatbelt use]. The variable [duration] was recoded as[duration 0-29 days] (yes/no) and [duration 30-200 days] (yes/no). All yes/no variables werethen coded as yes = 1 and no = 0. Scale was coded as national = 1; all other scales = 0background[start] seatbelt usage (%) before campaign, a continuous variable[duration] 0-29 days / 30-200 days / others[paid media] media coverage / ads paid for by campaign? yes / no[scale] national/ othersdelivery[combined mass-media] Did the campaign use television+radio+newspaper? yes /no[personal influence] Did the campaign attempt to influence personally? yes / no[on-road] Did campaign use billboards, variable/fixed message signs onthe road? yes / no[dvd-video-cinema] Did campaign delivery use either DVD, video or cinema? yes /no[target identification] Was a particular group defined and targeted? yes / no[enforcement] Was the campaign accompanied by enforcement? yes / no[reward] Did the campaign use a reward incentive? yes / no[limited area] Were the campaigns delivered to a limited or restrictedpopulation? yes / nocontent[emotional and rational] Did campaign have emotional and rational content? yes / no[humour] Did the campaign have humorous content? yes/no[shocking Did the campaign show shocking consequences? yes/noconsequences][non-shocking Did the campaign show non-shocking consequences? yes /noconsequences][social norm] Did the campaign address the social norm? yes / no[previous campaign] Was the content based on previous campaigns? yes / no[risk of detection] Did the campaign attempt to point out the risks of beingdetected? yes / no[risk of harm] Did the campaign attempt to point out the risks of being harmed?yes / no[target group consulted] Did the campaign consult a sample of the target group indeveloping the content? yes / noLooking at the simple bivariate correlations among the independent variables,there was a strong relationship between [combined mass-media] and [targetidentification] (r = - 0.75; p>0.001). The latter variable was excluded forconsistency with the accident model.There were 16 variables remaining in the model at this stage. The efficiency ofthe model was improved as described for accidents. The following variableswere excluded at this stage: [duration 30 to 200 days], [dvd-video-cinema],[target consultation], [scale – national], [previous campaign] and [paid media].There were then ten variables remaining, meeting statistical recommendationsfor the ratio of variables studied to outcome effects in the sample. A weighted,simultaneous standard multiple regression was therefore run using thevariables [duration - 0 to 29 days], [initial seatbelt use], [personal influence],[on-road], [showing non-shocking consequences], [risk of harm],[enforcement], [humour], [limited area] and [combined mass-media], using lnodds ratios calculated from seatbelt use effects (Table 8.4).107
Page 1 and 2:
Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56: Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 105: Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 151: Campaigns and awareness raising str
show all

Deliverable D 1.3 RESULTS OF META-ANALYSIS ... - cast-eu.org

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?