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

Campaigns and awareness raising strategies in traffic safety — Deliverable D-1.1A comparison of these results with those in Table 7.2 shows that most of thecampaigns in the sample are, according to our definition, mass-mediacampaigns. Further, for each outcome measure, exclusion of thosecampaigns not employing mass-media results in either no change or areduction in overall effect. However, where the results are based on largernumbers of individual effects, and therefore more reliable, any reduction isonly slight. For example, overall effect on accidents has reduced from a 6 percent reduction for all campaigns to a 5 per cent reduction for mass-mediacampaigns, or on seatbelt use from a 25 per cent increase in use for allcampaigns to a 19 per cent increase for mass-media campaigns.7.6.2 REPORTING AND EVALUATION (MASS-MEDIA)When all campaigns in the sample were analysed, a statistical difference wasobserved between larger overall seatbelt use effects reported in the 1980s (52per cent increase) and those reported in the 1990s (19 per cent increase) and2000s (14 per cent increase) (Table 7.23). For mass-media campaigns, the1980s effect is reduced but there is still the same trend over time (see Table7.44). The improvements in seatbelt use rates over the last 30 years seem tohave influenced a drop in overall campaign effect on seatbelt use forcampaigns employing mass-media (see 7.5.1 for explanation). Only 34 of the78 campaigns reported in the 1980s were mass-media campaigns. Thissuggests that the overall sample analysed in section 7.6 contains a number ofsmaller, effective seatbelt campaigns from the 1980s.Table 7.44 Overall effect of mass-media campaigns on road accidents and seatbelt useaccording to aspects of reporting and evaluation. After accounting for publication bias. Eachoverall effect is based on n individual effects (excluding any artificial effects generated bytrim-and-fill).AccidentsSeatbelt usedecade ofpublicationeffect(%)95%confidenceinterval (%)nSig.?(p < 0.05)effect(%)95%confidenceinterval (%)nSig.?(p < 0.05)1980s -10 (-17;-4) 29 yes +29 (+13;+47) 34 yes1990s -12 (-17;-6) 58 yes +19 (+14;+24) 22 yes2000s -2 (-14;+11) 16 no +9 (+3;+16) 10 yesevaluationdesigncontrol -7 (-12;-2) 78 yes +24 (+17;+33) 23 yesno control -9 (-15;-3) 27 yes +19 (+9;+30) 42 yesbefore-during -14 (-18;-10) 80 yes +13 (-3;+31) 10 yesbefore-after -13 -16;-10) 17 yes +37 (+23;+52) 30 yesbefore-duringafter+2 (-18;+27) 8 no +33 (+25;+42) 26 yes90