Road traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers distracted by mobile devices

Zatezalo, Natasa; Erdoğan, Mete; Green, Robert S.

doi:10.4103/jets.jets_24_18

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cell phone use has been widely studied as a possible cause of an increasing number of motor vehicle crashes in the United States . In their analysis of ambulatory cell phone–related injuries, Smith et al identified injuries related to cell phone use while walking as a phenomenon increasing in frequency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head and Neck Injuries Associated With Cell Phone Use

Povolotskiy

Gupta

Leverant

et al. 2020

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE As cell phones gain more influence in daily life, they also become potentially more hazardous. Injuries resulting from cell phone use have long been reported largely in the context of driving-related incidents, but other mechanisms of injury have been underreported. OBJECTIVE To assess the incidence, types, and mechanisms of head and neck injuries associated with cell phone use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective cross-sectional study using data from a national database of individuals with head and neck injuries related to cell phone use who presented to emergency departments in the United States between January 1998 and December 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Incidence, types, and mechanisms of injury related to cell phone use in the US population. RESULTS A reported total of 2501 patients (1129 [55.0%] female, 795 [38.8%] white, and 772 [37.6%] aged 13-29 years) presented with injuries of the head and neck related to cell phone use; the estimated weighted national total was 76 043 patients (42 846 females [56.3%], 34 894 [45.9%] white, and 29 956 [39.4%] aged 13-29 years). The most commonly reported subsites of injuries in the head and neck region included the head (33.1% of estimated total); face, including eyelid, eye area, and nose (32.7%); and neck (12.5%). The most common injury diagnoses included laceration (26.3% of estimated total), contusion/abrasion (24.5%), and internal organ injury (18.4%). Age group distributions showed that most injuries associated with cell phone user distraction occurred among individuals aged 13 to 29 years (60.3%; Cramer V = 0.29). In addition, those younger than 13 years were significantly more likely to sustain direct mechanical injury from a cell phone (82.1%) than to have a cell phone use-associated injury (17.9%) (Cramer V = 0.305), whereas a cell phone use-associated injury was more likely than a direct mechanical injury to occur among those aged 50 to 64 years (68.2% vs 31.8%; Cramer V = 0.11) and those older than 65 years (90.3% vs 9.7%; Cramer V = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Cell phone-related injuries to the head and neck have increased steeply over the recent 20-year period, with many cases resulting from distraction. Although the disposition of most cases is simple, some injuries bear a risk of long-term complications. Many of these injuries occurred among those aged 13 to 29 years and were associated with common activities, such as texting while walking. These findings suggest a need for patient education about injury prevention and the dangers of activity while using these devices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head and Neck Injuries Associated With Cell Phone Use

Povolotskiy

Gupta

Leverant

et al. 2020

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Smartphone addiction is defined as the excessive smartphone use, which is associated with functional impairment in activities of daily living and substance dependence-like-symptoms. [1] A growing number of studies have shown that excessive SPU is associated with road traffic accidents and fatalities, [2,3] higher stress scores, [4] higher anxiety and depression scores, [5][6][7] poor social relationships, [8] sleep disturbance, [9,10] low physical activity, [7,11] fast food consumption and weight gain, [11] and potentially dry eye disease (DED). [12,13] The International Dry Eye WorkShop Study Group defines DED " .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between smartphone use and dry eye disease

Al-Marri¹,

Al-Qashoti²,

Al-Zoqari³

et al. 2021

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Emerging research findings suggest a potential relationship between smartphone use (SPU) and dry eye disease (DED), which has not been systematically reviewed.Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review and synthesize evidence on the relationship between SPU and DED.Methods: A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO bibliographic databases from their inception to January 15, 2021. Study screening, full-text assessment, study selection and exclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by at least two review authors.Results: Four studies were included in the review (3 cross-sectional studies and 1 nonrandomized clinical trial). A narrative synthesis of findings was used due to heterogeneity among study designs and measures of association summarizing the relationship between SPU and DED. All included studies were conducted in South Korea and included school children, college students, or young adults. Three of the 4 included studies showed an association between SPU and DED.Conclusions: There is some evidence that SPU is associated with DED. However, this evidence is limited by a small number of studies of satisfactory methodological quality. There is a great need for high-quality studies to further investigate the relationship between SPU and DED and identify mechanisms underlying this potential relationship. This information is important for raising public awareness about the negative effect of SPU on eye health and development of clinical guidelines for this potentially emerging SPUdriven eye condition.Abbreviations: DED = dry eye disease, MeSH = medical subject headings, OSDI = ocular surface disease index, PRISMA = preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analysis, SPU = smartphone use, VDU = visual display units.

show abstract

“…However, there is still a research deficit on the trauma burden related to distracted driving. A systematic review on traffic trauma that included both injuries and fatalities due to mobile phone distractions reported a wide range for the proportion of distracted-driving trauma that included both injury and death (0.04% to 44.7%), concluding that further studies of traumatic injuries due to driver distraction are needed 17 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distracted Driving Among Patients with Trauma Attending Fracture Clinics in Canada

Team¹

2022

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Globally, every 25 seconds, a person dies in a motor vehicle crash (MVC) and 58 people get injured. Adding to the rising distracted-driving rates is the rapid growth of the number of cars in circulation globally. This study examined the proportion of distracted drivers among patients attending orthopaedic fracture clinics, as well as associated factors.Methods:In this large, multicenter, cross-sectional study, we recruited 1,378 patients across 4 Canadian fracture clinics. Eligible patients completed an anonymous questionnaire about distracted driving. We calculated the percentages of specific distractions. Using questionnaire responses and published crash risk odds ratios (ORs), patients were grouped as distraction-prone and distraction-averse. Regression analyses to determine the association of demographic characteristics with distracting behaviors and the odds of being in a distraction-related crash were performed.Results:In total, 1,358 patients (99.7%) self-reported distracted driving. Prevalent distractions included talking to passengers (98.7%), distractions outside the vehicle (95.5%), listening to the radio (97.6%), adjusting the radio (93.8%), and daydreaming (61.2%). Of the 1,354 patients who acknowledged mobile phone distractions, 889 (65.7%) accepted phone calls and continued driving, 675 (49.8%) read electronic messages, and 475 (35.1%) sent electronic messages. Younger age (OR, 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 0.97]; p < 0.001) and household incomes of $80,000 to <$100,000 (OR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.17 to 3.14]; p = 0.01) and ≥$100,000 (OR, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.57 to 3.91]; p < 0.001) were associated with being in the distraction-prone group. Distraction-prone patients were twice as likely to be in a distraction-related MVC (OR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.74]; p < 0.001). Of 113 drivers who sustained injuries from MVCs, 20 (17.7%) acknowledged being distracted. Of 729 patients who reported being the driver in a previous MVC in their lifetime, 226 (31.0%) confirmed being distracted.Conclusions:This survey-based study showed that driving distractions were near universally acknowledged. The pervasiveness of distractions held true even when only the more dangerous distractions were considered. One in 6 patients in MVCs reported being distracted in their current crash, and 1 in 3 patients disclosed being distracted in an MVC during their lifetime.

show abstract

Road traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers distracted by mobile devices

Cited by 14 publications

References 30 publications

Head and Neck Injuries Associated With Cell Phone Use

Head and Neck Injuries Associated With Cell Phone Use

The relationship between smartphone use and dry eye disease

Distracted Driving Among Patients with Trauma Attending Fracture Clinics in Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About