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-1.1Only a minority (31 per cent) of the campaigns had an explicit basis, and lessthan 20 per cent were based on a psychosocial theory or model. Thishindered our ability to assess the influence of a particular model on campaigneffects.The factor ‘emotional content’ remained necessarily vague while links todetailed campaign content was not available in the evaluation studies. Wewould particularly like to encourage the explicit documentation of theemotional content of a campaign. Cross-referencing campaign documentationwould help.We were particularly surprised at the lack of campaigns evaluated that wereexplicitly shocking Very few conclusions could be drawn about the ‘use of fear’in campaigns, and we would encourage more evaluation of these types ofcampaigns.Evaluation studies often fail to report exactly when, in relation to the campaignperiod, measurements are taken. This prevented an analysis of possibledeterioration of campaign effects over time. Furthermore, the reporting bymany studies of measurements in simple terms (often as ‘before’ or ‘after’values), encouraged the comparison of all before-after effects, even thoughthe after effect may be taken 1 day or several months following campaigncompletion. We strongly recommend that after measures be reported aslevels x days following campaign initiation and/or completion, not only in theresults sections but in all Figures and Abstracts.Finally, attempts are made in Deliverable 1.4 of this Work Package toconsider different models of road user behaviour, and how they can be usedto predict behaviour, and in turn influence accidents. For instance, the Theoryof Planned Behaviour would predict that campaigns should influencebehaviour through intentions to behave and, in turn, through attitudes,perceived outcome and social norms. In our experience it is difficult toevaluate these models using the current evaluation studies. Although a poorrelationship was found between attitudes and campaigns, the psychometricqualities of the attitude measures used by evaluation studies are on the wholevery poor. In addition, study evaluations simply do not provide enoughinformation about affect or perceived social norms to enable their evaluation.These findings would seem to strengthen the call for standardisation ofcampaign evaluations based on constructs representing a wide range of themost feasible models.118
Campaigns and awareness raising strategies in traffic safety — Deliverable D-1.110. REFERENCES10.1 GENERAL REFERENCESChristensen P. (2003) Topics in meta-analysis. TOI Report. 692/2003,Institute of Transport Economics. Oslo.Delhomme P., Vaa, T., Meyer, T., Harland, G., Goldenbeld, C., Järmark, S.,Christie, N. & Rehnova, V. (1999) Evaluated road safety media campaigns: anoverview of 265 evaluated campaigns and some meta-analysis on accidents.European Commission RDT programme of the 4th Framework Programme.Contract No.RP-97-SC.2235Duval S. & Tweedie R. (2000) A non-parametric 'trim-and-fill' method ofassessing publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the AmericanStatistical Association 95,Duval S. & Tweedie R. (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based methodof testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56,pp. 455-463.Elliott, B. (1993) Road safety campaigns: a meta-analysis. Report CR118,Department of Transport and Communications, Federal Office of Road Safety.ISBN 0642512523.Elvik, R. & Vaa, T. (2004) The handbook of road safety measures, Elsevier.London.ETSC (2003). European Transport Safety Council. Cost-effective EUTransport safety Measures, Brussles, 2003. Accseed on-line athttp://www.etsc.be/documents/costeff.pdf on 1 November, 2008.Everitt, B.S. (2003) Modern medical statistics. Arnold Pubs, London.Light, R.J. & Pillemer, D.B. (1984). Summing up. The science of reviewingresearch. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Tabachnikk, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. 5 thEdition. Pearson Education Inc.Vaa T., Assum, T., Ulleberg, P. & Veisten, K. (2004) Effekter avinformasjonskampanjer på atferd og trafikkulykker - forutsetninger, evalueringog kostnadseffektivitet. TØI Rapport. 727/2004 Institute of TransportEconomics. Oslo.119
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:
Page 67 and 68: Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 117: 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?