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-1.1campaign effects, and the reasons for its existence. Do target populationsbecome more resistant to safety campaigns over time (campaign fatigue?) ordo other cultural or social effects come into play as initial levels of desiredbehaviour increase in the target population?Links between campaign effects on accidents and behaviourOne might have expected that meta-regression would identify a single set ofcampaign factors that are responsible both for successful changes in roaduser behaviour and accidents. One might go further and predict that that sameset of factors should be more strongly related to behavioural outcomes. Wecontend, however, that the two models presented in CAST should not beconsidered in this way for several reasons.Firstly, the accident effects used to generate the accident model are ofcampaigns whose themes are not only seatbelt use, but drink-driving,speeding, general road safety behaviours and so on. Change in each of thesebehaviours may be more or less susceptible to influence by differentcampaign factors. For instance, on-road messages might be less likely todiscourage drink-driving, which begins off-road (presumably), than speedingor seatbelt wearing.The situation is further complicated by the fact that the same percentage andintensity of change in each of these behaviours will have different effects onaccident counts.Secondly, as we have noted, the models are generated from groups of studiesthat differ systematically. For example, studies using seatbelt effects tend,more than those using accident counts, to evaluate campaigns carried out onrestricted populations. Restricted populations are amenable to differentmeasures, and can be influenced in different ways.Further explore on-road delivery methodsAs we have noted, on-road delivery was consistently effective according tomultivariate analysis. Since the variable comprises billboard, variablemessage sign and fixed message sign use, it would be worth exploring furtherto see whether active feedback is simple delivery of a message in a drivingcontext that is important. The use of roadside posters or posters mounted onpublic transport could be added to expand the variable.Addressing social norms, emotional-rational content, and clearidentification of target group could also be importantSubgroup analyses in this report give insight into some factors that we wereunable to enter into meta-regression analysis, due to the lack of descriptivedata available in the evaluation studies. As we have said, those campaigns inour sample that identify target groups, address the social norm, or combineemotional and rational information, are associated with better accident andseatbelt use outcomes. The use of a reward, or a pledge system in whichpeople ‘pledge’ to change behaviour, are also associated with better seatbeltuse outcomes, as is consultation with a sample of the target for thedevelopment of campaign content. Although it should be remembered thatthese associations were found when other factors are not controlled for, theyremain potentially important. Just because they could not be included as116
Campaigns and awareness raising strategies in traffic safety — Deliverable D-1.1candidate models for meta-regression analysis does not mean they are notmeaningful influences on campaign effect.Consider limitations of meta-analysis when interpreting resultsA further reason for including subgroup analyses in this report is as acomplement to the meta-regression data, which is generated on the basis ofseveral important assumptions. We have attempted to delineate theoreticaland methodological limitations throughout this report and while it is not ouraim to repeat them here, willingness to accept the conclusions we drawshould depend on the level of agreement with decisions we have made andassumptions we have taken during treatment of the data.In this vein, it is worth outlining the breadth of the database of road safetycampaign evaluations itself. It contains 433 effects, including 133 seatbelt useeffects and 115 accident effects. Most of the studies are drawn from scientificjournals and institute reports, and they summarize campaigns carried outacross the last 30 years, mainly in Europe and USA. The most commoncampaign themes in the database are seatbelts (34 per cent of effects forseatbelt campaigns), drink-driving (24 per cent) and speeding (15 per cent).The types of campaign tending to use accidents as a measure of campaigneffect are drink-driving (36 per cent of accident effects are for drink-drivecampaigns) and speeding (22 per cent) campaigns. There is some evidencethat different countries tend to focus on certain themes; in particular manyseatbelt-themed campaigns are American (69 per cent) and many drink-drivecampaigns Australian (43 per cent). The campaigns cover a wide range scopeand duration, from less than one hundred to over a million people and from 1day to several years. In accepting the conclusions drawn from this data, onemust assume that we can learn from the regularities apparent amongst suchdisparate information.Evaluation studies should include more informationFinally, we would like to recommend improvements to reduce the number ofthose limitations that have their roots in the original campaign evaluationstudies.First, we are unable to say anything about the effects of campaigns on theintensity of safety outcomes such as speed, because such measures werefew and far between. It would be interesting to evaluate known speeds for aknown number of observations, but studies either state average recordedspeed in the absence of other information, or give percentage speeding (i.e.frequency not intensity of behaviour). In this study we decided to focus on themore available percentage speeding measure, which does not tell us anythingabout how much speeds have slowed.In many cases it was not clear whether a campaign is part of an ongoingprogramme or not. While we tried to avoid including campaigns that followedon from recent campaigns that could still be having effects, it was not alwayseasy to determine the situation from the available information. Clearerinformation about the history of campaigns carried out in the study area wouldhelp.117
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:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66: Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 115: 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?