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-1.1in the EU are quite high, varying between 45 and 95 per cent for front seatoccupants (ETSC, 2003). Further, because there was a positive link betweenyear and initial seatbelt use (r = +.53; p < .001), the analysis also addressesto some extent the relevance of our analysis to contemporary campaigns.The model generated similar results for each split, with some differences(Figure 8.3). Based on this analysis we can conclude that the findings aboutinitial seatbelt use, limited area, humour and addressing risk of harm are quiterobust.Figure 8.3. Meta-regression of final seatbelt model after data split according to whetherinitial seatbelt use was above or below 40 per cent.Link withseatbelt useAll effects(n = 133)initial seatbelt use < 40%(n = 66)initial seatbelt use > 40%(n = 67)+Initial seatbelt use Initial seatbelt use Initial seatbelt useLimited areaLimited areaAddressing risk of Addressing risk of harm Addressing risk of harmharmOn-road delivery Combined mass media On-road deliveryPersonal influence (Enforcement) Personal influence-Using humour Using humour Using humour(showing nonshockingconsequencesShowing non-shockingconsequences)neutralShort duration Short duration Short durationenforcement Personal influence Showing non-shockingconsequencesCombined mass On-road deliveryCombined mass mediamediaLimited area4. The variable [stripped mass-media] was tested in place of [combinedmass-media] in the final model, as described for the accident model checks in8.2.1. There was very little difference in results.5. As explained for the accident checks, we wanted to check for anydifferences in effects derived from controlled and non-controlled studies.Added as a variable to the final seatbelt model, [control] has no influence onvariance in seatbelt effect (beta = 0.019, p = 0.83). Neither does it affect anyof the conclusions drawn from the final model variables. A split file analysisbased on control was not performed since there were only 35 controlledseatbelt effects, making the ratio of variables to cases far too high.110
Campaigns and awareness raising strategies in traffic safety — Deliverable D-1.18.3.2 SUMMARY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING CAMPAIGN EFFECTS ONSEATBELT USEWe were unable to account for all of the important potential influences onseatbelt use effects. We were limited ultimately by the information available inevaluation studies. Important considerations omitted concern both the contentand delivery of the campaigns. In particular, accounting for social norms, useof emotion or shock, and the advantage of consulting a sample of the targetgroup before the campaign was not possible. For statistical reasons we werealso unable to compare risk of detection, as a factor addressed in campaigncontent, together with the use of enforcement to assist delivery of that content.The limitations of delivery considerations discussed for accidents also apply tothe final seatbelt model.With these reservations in mind, along with the assumptions highlighted in8.1.1, we conclude the following.The lower the initial level of seatbelt use, the more likely a campaign is toincrease seatbelt use. This result is robust and the relationship is strong.Campaigns carried out within a limited area, where the target of the campaigncan be captured very well, are associated with an increase in seatbelt use.Addressing the risk of harm appears to be beneficial, and this may well berelated to the fact that using humour in a campaign appears to be relativelydetrimental to seatbelt use levels.Across the last 30 years, attempts to use personal influence in a campaignare associated with positive seatbelt use outcomes, as is the delivery ofmessages at the roadside.As independent factors, campaign duration, use of combined mass-media,and enforcement were not associated with significant variation in seatbelt use.The latter result might be explained in part by the strength of the limited areavariable in this model.Checks on the robustness of the model included a split-half analysis based onan initial seatbelt use level of 40 per cent. Associations between campaigneffect and initial seatbelt use, addressing the risk of harm and humourremained for both halves of the analysis, despite the reduced number ofeffects on which each half is based.111
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:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60: Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 109: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?