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-1.1Category Variable Coded as…consultationbasis ontheorykind of theorybasis on priorworkuse of riskmessagerisk of harm toselfrisk of harm toothersrisk ofdetectionconsequencesshownshockingeffectshumoursocial normemotional,rational,incentive7.1.2 DATA EXTRACTION0. No, 1. Yes1. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), 2. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), 3. SocialLearning theory (Bandura), 4.Peer-eduation method, 5. Behavioural theory, 6. Publicinformation and education model, 7. Public Information & Enforcement and Selective TrafficEnforcement Program (STEP), 8. Self-responsibility, 9. Risk salience link to behaviour, 10.Based on previous work, 11. Organizational Behavior theory, 12 Social marketing0. No, 1. Yes0. No, 1. Yes0. No, 1. Yes0. No, 1. Yes0. No, 1. Yes0. No, 1. Yes0. No, 1. Yes0. No, 1. Yes0. No, 1. Yes0. Emotional, 1. Rational, 2. Both emotional and rational, 3. IncentiveRelevant data were systematically extracted from each study using aspreadsheet. The spreadsheet was designed to capture and structurevariables describing the evaluation study, the delivery of the campaign, thecontent of the campaign, and of course the effects of campaign on theoutcome measure. The spreadsheet was elaborated as the data was collectedin order to capture any aspect of campaign delivery or content that mightinfluence campaign effectiveness.The variables used to structure the spreadsheet are given in Table 7.1, wherethey are also grouped into categories.To attain the large number of results necessary for meta-regression, effectswere included whether or not data for corresponding control groups werereported.The data was coded by a single researcher i.e. there were no checks for interraterreliability.7.1.3 PROCESSING OF STUDY DATAFor each campaign effect, data describing the campaign and its evaluationwere entered into the database. Meta-analysis was used to test whether theeffects reported by controlled and non-controlled designs differed significantlyfor each of the outcome measures. If no such difference was identified, alleffects reported for the outcome measure were included in subsequentanalyses. Meta-analysis was performed to determine the overall effect ofcampaigns according to a specific outcome measure and to inform a metaregressionanalysis. This process is outlined in Chapter 6 and exemplified insome detail in section 7.3.56
Campaigns and awareness raising strategies in traffic safety — Deliverable D-1.17.2 SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONThe sample of effects entered into the CAST database is meant to berepresentative of all safety campaign evaluations carried out in recent times inthe Western world. To enable the reader to make a judgement about this,various characteristics of the sample are described. These should be carefullyconsidered when assessing the general applicability of conclusions frommeta-analysis of this sample. Sample description is based on the variablescollected during data extraction, which are detailed and categorized in Table7.1.7.2.1 REPORTING AND EVALUATIONThe 173 studies passing selection criteria contained 433 different campaigneffects judged as suitable for entry into the CAST database. Different types ofoutcome measure included in the final sample are given in Table 7.2.Table 7.2. Different types of outcome measure reported by the 173 studies identifiedcampaigneffectsselfreportedoutcome measureobservedseatbelt use 133 24 119 14accidents 115 25 114 1attitude 39 0 39speeding 28 21 7risk perception 24 0 24drink-driving 23 4 19recall 23 0 23knowledge 17 0 17driver behaviour towards pedestrian 13 11 2cycle helmet use 4 4 0intervention behaviour 4 0 4intention to behave 4 0 4red light running 2 2 0reflector use 1 1 0booster cushion use 1 0 1estimation that others speed 1 0 1conservation behaviour 1 0 1total 433 276 157Table 7.2 also shows for each group of effects, whether outcome measureswere evaluated by others (i.e. observed) or self-reported by the target group.The outcome measures ‘accidents’, ‘seatbelt use’, ‘speeding’ and ‘driverbehaviour towards pedestrians’ were mostly observed, and are thereforeconsidered more reliable. Drink-driving behaviour, attitudes, risk appreciation,knowledge, intentions and recall were mostly self-reported. While there was asufficient number of effects in most groups for meta-analysis based onoutcome measure, the only outcome measures for which there were enough24 Includes 14 effects for child restraint use25 The GADGET and INFOEFFEKT projects summarized a total of 72 and 86 effects of road safetycampaigns on accidents, respectively.57
Page 1 and 2:
Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6: Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 55: Campaigns and awareness raising str
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?