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

Campaigns and awareness raising strategies in traffic safety — Deliverable D-1.1APPENDIX D –RESULTS FROM META-ANALYSIS OFINFOEFFEKT PROJECT (VAA ET AL, 2004)Table D1 General effect of road safety campaigns on road accident in the campaignperiod and in the after-period. Percentage and confidence interval.(n = number ofresults)Group: Effect 95% -confidenceintervalP < 0.05 ?Effect in campaign period (n = 72) - 8.9 (- 12.7; - 4.6) yesEffect in after-period (n =14) - 14.8 (- 23.0; - 0.5) yesSource: TØI report 727/2004Table D2. Effects (%) of road safety campaigns on road accidents. Based on randomeffectmodels with generated data from “trim-and-fill”. Percentages and confidenceintervals.Theme of campaigns Effect 95% CI p < 0.05?All campaigns (n=72) - 8.9 (-12.7; - 4.6) YesCampaigns against drink driving (n=33) -14.4 (- 21.1; - 8.3) YesAustralian RBT-campaigns *) (n=9) -13.5 (- 22.2; - 3.8) YesCampaigns against speeding (n=18) -8.5 (- 19.9; + 3.4) NoOther single-theme campaigns (n=6) -10.4 (- 18.9; - 1.1) yesMulti-theme campaigns (n=15) 1.0 (- 6.7; + 9.3) No*) RBT = Random Breath Testing. Source: TØI report 727/2004Table D3: Effect (%) of road safety campaigns on road accident distributedaccording to type of campaigns. Based on random-effect models with generated datafrom “trim-and-fill”. Percentages and confidence intervals.Campaigns according to type Effect 95% - CI p < 0.05?Mass media campaigns alone 0.9 (- 8.6; + 11.7) NoMass media campaigns + enforcement -12.7 (- 18.9; - 6.2) YesMass media campaigns + enforcement +education -14.2 (- 22.0; - 4.9) YesLocal, personally directed campaigns -39.3 (- 56.0; - 17.4) YesSource: TØI report 727/2004149