Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study

McEvoy, Suzanne; Stevenson, Mark; McCartt, Anne Taylor; Woodward, Mark; Haworth, Claire; Palamara, Peter; Cercarelli, Rina

doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55

Cited by 471 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

238

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As it is important that risks during control periods and crash trips are similar, we compared phone activity during the hazard interval (time immediately before the crash) with phone activity during control intervals (equivalent times during which participants were driving but did not crash) in the previous week." 28 …”

Section: Study Design: Present Key Elements Of Study Design Early Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, for a casecrossover study, one of the variants of the case-control design, a succinct description of the principles was given in the example above. 28 We recommend that authors refrain from simply calling a study 'prospective' or 'retrospective' because these terms are ill defined. 29 One usage sees cohort and prospective as synonymous and reserves the word retrospective for casecontrol studies.…”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies.The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. (Epidemiology 2007;18: 805-835) R ational health care practices require knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of diseases. Randomized trials provide valuable evidence about treatments and other interventions. However, much of clinical or public health knowledge comes from observational research. 1 About nine of ten research papers published in clinical speciality journals describe observational research. 2,3 The STROBE StatementReporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. 4,5 To improve the reporting of observational research, we developed a checklist of items that should be addressed: the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement (Table 1). Items relate to title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. The STROBE Statement has recently been published in several journals. 6 Our aim is to ensure clear presentation of what was planned, done, and found in an observational study. We stress that the recommendations are not prescriptions for setting up or conducting studies, nor do they dictate methodology or mandate a uniform presentation.STROBE provides general reporting recommendations for descriptive observational studies and studies that investigate 805associations between expos...

show abstract

Section: Study Design: Present Key Elements Of Study Design Early Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The motivation for such legislation may initially have been concern about interference caused by holding and dialing a cellular phone, and early studies suggested that the manual aspects of cellular phone use were the critical determinant of a decrement in driving performance (Drory, 1985). However, recent behavioral studies have shown that simulated driving performance is also disrupted by conversations using hands-free devices Nilsson, 1994, 1995;Anttila and Luoma 2005;Beede and Kass, 2006;Brookhuis et al, 1991;Consiglio et al, 2003;Horberry et al, 2006;Hunton and Rose, 2005;Jamson and Merat 2005;Lamble et al, 1999;Levy et al, 2006;Liu and Lee, 2005;Matthews et al, 2003;Patten et al, 2004;Ranney et al, 2005;Shinar et al, 2005;Strayer and Drews, 2004;Strayer et al, 2003Strayer et al, , 2006Strayer and Johnston, 2001;Bolling, 2005, 2006;Treffner and Barrett, 2004), and epidemiological studies of real-world accidents suggest that users of hands-free phones are just as likely to have an accident as users of hand-held devices (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997;McEvoy et al, 2005). In their meta-analysis of recent dual-task driving studies, Horey and Wickens (2006) concluded that the costs to driving performance resulting from a secondary simulated conversation task were equivalent for hand-held and hands-free devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral studies have shown that engaging in a secondary task, such as talking on a cellular telephone, disrupts driving performance. This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the impact of concurrent auditory language comprehension on the brain activity associated with a simulated driving task. Participants steered a vehicle along a curving virtual road, either undisturbed or while listening to spoken sentences that they judged as true or false. The dual-task condition produced a significant deterioration in driving accuracy caused by the processing of the auditory sentences. At the same time, the parietal lobe activation associated with spatial processing in the undisturbed driving task decreased by 37% when participants concurrently listened to sentences. The findings show that language comprehension performed concurrently with driving draws mental resources away from the driving and produces deterioration in driving performance, even when it does not require holding or dialing a phone. IntroductionAn enduring question about the human mind concerns the ability to do two things at the same time. As technological and informational capabilities of our environment increase, the number of available information streams increases, and hence the opportunities for complex multitasking increase. In particular, multitasking of driving and conversing on a cell phone is technologically available, but intuitively seems dangerous in some circumstances. Although driving becomes sufficiently cognitively automated (Schneider, 1999) to permit experienced drivers to perform other tasks at the same time, such as carrying on a conversation, a large number of behavioral studies have now shown that performing another cognitive task while driving an actual or virtual car substantially degrades driving performance Nilsson, 1994, 1995;Anttila and Luoma, 2005;Beede and Kass, 2006;Brookhuis et al., 1991;Consiglio et al., 2003;Drory, 1985;Engström et al., 2005;Haigney et al., 2000;Hancock et al., 2003;Horberry et al., 2006;Horrey and Wickens, 2004;Hunton and Rose, 2005;Jamson and Merat, 2005;Kubose et al., 2006;Lamble et al., 1999;Lesch and Hancock, 2004;Liu and Lee, 2005;Matthews et al., 2003;McKnight and McKnight, 1993;Patten et al., 2004;Ranney et al., 2005; Nunes, 2000, 2003;Santos et al., 2005;Shinar et al., 2005; Drews, 2004, 2007;Strayer et al., 2003Strayer et al., , 2006Strayer and Johnston, 2001; Bolling, 2005, 2006;Treffner and Barrett, 2004). Although some of these studies show that some aspects of driving are unaffected by a secondary task (e.g., Haigney et al., 2000) and in some cases certain aspects improve (e.g., Brookhuis et al., 1991;Engström et al., 2005), a recent meta-analysis of the literature suggests a large overall decrement in driving performance when a secondary task is added (Horey and Wickens, 2006).

show abstract

“…Using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is illegal throughout Australia, yet observational studies reveal that, at any one time, approximately 2% of Australian drivers are engaging in this behaviour (Glendon & Sutton, 2005;McEvoy et al, 2005;Taylor et al, 2003). This figure is likely to be higher in jurisdictions where hand-held mobile phone use is not illegal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Observational studies, however, cannot detect use of a hands-free mobile phone and, thus, the number of drivers using any type of mobile phone at any time remains unclear. Although drivers consider hands-free mobile phone use as safer than hand-held (White et al, 2004), it has been found that using a hands-free mobile phone is not significantly safer than using a hand-held mobile phone while driving (McEvoy et al, 2005;Svenson & Patten, 2005). Thus, mobile phone use while driving, irrespective of type of handset, is an unsafe driving practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialling and driving: Factors influencing intentions to use a mobile phone while driving

Walsh

White

Hyde

et al. 2008

Accident Analysis & Prevention

212

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite being identified as an unsafe (and, in some jurisdictions, illegal) driving practice, the psychological factors underlying people's decision to use their mobile phone while driving have received little attention. The present study utilised the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to examine the role of attitudes, norms, control factors, and risk perceptions, in predicting people's intentions to use their mobile phone while driving. We examined the predictors of intentions to use a mobile phone while driving in general, and for calling and text messaging in 4 scenarios differing in descriptions of vehicle speed and time pressure. There was some support for the TPB given that attitudes consistently predicted intentions to drive while using a mobile phone and that pressure from significant others (norms) determined some phone use while driving intentions, although less support was found for the role of perceptions of control. Risk was not generally predictive of safer driving intentions. These findings indicate that different factors influence each form of mobile phone use while driving and, hence, a multi-strategy approach is likely to be required to address the issue. Abstract: 180Word Count: 5702

show abstract

Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study

Abstract: Objectives To explore the effect of drivers' use of mobile (cell) phones on road safety. Design A case-crossover study.

Cited by 471 publications

References 21 publications

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak

Dialling and driving: Factors influencing intentions to use a mobile phone while driving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About