Evaluation of inter-organizational traffic injury prevention in a WHO safe community

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Background

Road Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high-income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence-based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high-income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.

Objectives

The objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.

Search Methods

The EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.

Selection Criteria

The interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post-crash pre-hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non-fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.

Data Collection and Analysis

The EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case-control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post-crash pre-hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non-fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety-six percent of the studies were reported from high-income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper-middle-income countries, and only 1.4% from lower-middle and low-income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.

Authors' Conclusions

The EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence-synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

Fifty Years of Accident Analysis & Prevention: A Bibliometric and Scientometric Overview

Accident Analysis & Prevention (AA&P) is a leading academic journal established in 1969 that serves as an important scientific communication platform for road safety studies. To celebrate its 50^th anniversary of publishing outstanding and insightful studies, a multi-dimensional statistical and visualized analysis of the AA&P publications between 1969 and 2018 was performed using the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database, bibliometrics and mapping-knowledge-domain (MKD) analytical methods, and scientometric tools. It was shown that the annual number of AA&P's publications has grown exponentially and that over the course of its development, AA&P has been a leader in the field of road safety, both in terms of innovation and dissemination. By determining its key source countries and organizations, core authors, highly co-cited published documents, and high burst-strength publications, we showed that AA&P's areas of focus include the "effects of hazard and risk perception on driving behavior", "crash frequency modeling analysis", "intentional driving violations and aberrant driving behavior", "epidemiology, assessment and prevention of road traffic injuries", and "crash-injury severity modeling analysis". Furthermore, the key burst papers that have played an important role in advancing research and guiding AA&P in new directions - particularly those in the fields of crash frequency and crash-injury severity modeling analyses were identified. Finally, a modified Haddon matrix in the era of intelligent, connected and autonomous transportation systems is proposed to provide new insights into the emerging generation of road safety studies.

An observational study of secondary task engagement while driving on urban streets in Iranian Safe Communities

In Iran the prevalence of traffic injuries and death from vehicle collisions are high. Driver engagement in non-driving-related tasks has been previously identified as an important contributing factor to crashes. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of drivers' engagement in potentially distracting activities in Kashmar, Khalilabad and Bardaskan, which are three Iranian International Safe Communities. Observations took place at 12 randomly selected roadside locations in each city, which were comprised of six main streets and six side streets. In total 7979 drivers were observed. The prevalence rates of potentially distracting activities in Kashmar, Khalilabad and Bardaskan were 24.3%, 26% and 24.9%, respectively. In both Kashmar and Khalilabad the most frequently observed secondary tasks were drivers talking to passengers (10.6% and 11.5%, respectively) followed by mobile phone use (3.4% and 4.0%, respectively). Although in Bardaskan the most commonly observed secondary task was also talking to passengers (12.7%), the second most common was reaching for an object (3.2%). In all three cities younger drivers were significantly more likely to be observed engaged in a secondary task while driving. Furthermore, involvement in secondary tasks while driving was significantly higher amongst females and those driving on a working day. The percentage of drivers identified as potentially distracted in these three Safe Communities was worryingly high. Thus, interventions should be integrated into the WHO Safe Community network in these cities, including: education regarding the risks associated with engaging in secondary activities while driving, law enforcement, tougher legislation, periodic assessment, raising public awareness, as well as attracting political and social support.

Differences in child injury hospitalizations in Sweden: The use of time-trend analysis to compare various community injury-prevention approaches

Aim: Sweden's child injury fatality rates are among the lowest in the world. The country has engaged in a number of community injury-prevention programmes. The purpose of this study was to compare child injury hospitalization rates from the Skaraborg District with the rest of Sweden. Our study hypothesis was that municipalities that offered comprehensive child injury-prevention programmes would see significant decreases in their child injury hospitalization rates, compared with other areas. Methods: The study areas comprised three groups, consisting of municipalities in Skaraborg that had adapted the Safe Communities approach to injury prevention programmes, other municipalities in the District, and the rest of Sweden. The aim of the analysis was twofold: (1) to fit time trends for children's injuries in various areas in an integrated manner; and (2) to compare time trends across locations between community safety-promotion programmes as well as with the control areas. Panel data models and parametric splines were used. Results: There were differences between incidence rates in the study areas and with regard to gender. There was a steep decrease in injury rates in one of the Safe Communities study areas for both genders. Conclusions: The methods applied in this analysis reveal more detailed and sophisticated time trends than the usual simple linear regression approach. The model provided a clearer view of the interactions of gender, area, and time as they impacted on children's injuries, and allowed for better insight into the impact of safety programmes.

Cycling infrastructure for reducing cycling injuries in cyclists

BACKGROUND

Cycling is an attractive form of transport. It is beneficial to the individual as a form of physical activity that may fit more readily into an individual's daily routine, such as for cycling to work and to the shops, than other physical activities such as visiting a gym. Cycling is also beneficial to the wider community and the environment as a result of fewer motorised journeys. Cyclists are seen as vulnerable road users who are frequently in close proximity to larger and faster motorised vehicles. Cycling infrastructure aims to make cycling both more convenient and safer for cyclists. This review is needed to guide transport planning.

OBJECTIVES

To:1. evaluate the effects of different types of cycling infrastructure on reducing cycling injuries in cyclists, by type of infrastructure;2. evaluate the effects of cycling infrastructure on reducing the severity of cycling injuries in cyclists;3. evaluate the effects of cycling infrastructure on reducing cycling injuries in cyclists with respect to age, sex and social group.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search on 2nd March 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase Classic + Embase(OvidSP), PubMed and 10 other databases. We searched websites, handsearched conference proceedings, screened reference lists of included studies and previously published reviews and contacted relevant organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies which evaluated the effect of cycling infrastructure (such as cycle lanes, tracks or paths, speed management, roundabout design) on cyclist injury or collision rates. Studies had to include a comparator, that is, either no infrastructure or a different type of infrastructure. We excluded studies that assessed collisions that occurred as a result of competitive cycling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors examined the titles and abstracts of papers obtained from searches to determine eligibility. Two review authors extracted data from the included trials and assessed the risk of bias. We carried out a meta-analysis using the random-effects model where at least three studies reported the same intervention and outcome. Where there were sufficient studies, as a secondary analysis we accounted for changes in cyclist exposure in the calculation of the rate ratios. We rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach for the installation of cycle routes and networks.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 21 studies for inclusion in the review: 20 controlled before-after (CBA) studies and one interrupted time series (ITS) study. These evaluated a range of infrastructure including cycle lanes, advanced stop lines, use of colour, cycle tracks, cycle paths, management of the road network, speed management, cycle routes and networks, roundabout design and packages of measures. No studies reported medically-attended or self-reported injuries. There was no evidence that cycle lanes reduce the rate of cycle collisions (rate ratio 1.21, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.08). Taking into account cycle flow, there was no difference in collisions for cyclists using cycle routes and networks compared with cyclists not using cycle routes and networks (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.05). There was statistically significant heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 75%, Chi² = 8.00 df = 2, P = 0.02) for the analysis adjusted for cycle flow. We judged the quality of the evidence regarding cycle routes and networks as very low and we are very uncertain about the estimate. These analyses are based on findings from CBA studies.From data presented narratively, the use of 20 mph speed restrictions in urban areas may be effective at reducing cyclist collisions. Redesigning specific parts of cycle routes that may be particularly busy or complex in terms of traffic movement may be beneficial to cyclists in terms of reducing the risk of collision. Generally, the conversion of intersections to roundabouts may increase the number of cycle collisions. In particular, the conversion of intersections to roundabouts with cycle lanes marked as part of the circulating carriageway increased cycle collisions. However, the conversion of intersections with and without signals to roundabouts with cycle paths may reduce the odds of collision. Both continuing a cycle lane across the mouth of a side road with a give way line onto the main road, and cycle tracks, may increase the risk of injury collisions in cyclists. However, these conclusions are uncertain, being based on a narrative review of findings from included studies. There is a lack of evidence that cycle paths or advanced stop lines either reduce or increase injury collisions in cyclists. There is also insufficient evidence to draw any robust conclusions concerning the effect of cycling infrastructure on cycling collisions in terms of severity of injury, sex, age, and level of social deprivation of the casualty.In terms of quality of the evidence, there was little matching of intervention and control sites. In many studies, the comparability of the control area to the intervention site was unclear and few studies provided information on other cycling infrastructures that may be in place in the control and intervention areas. The majority of studies analysed data routinely collected by organisations external to the study team, thus reducing the risk of bias in terms of systematic differences in assessing outcomes between the control and intervention groups. Some authors did not take regression-to-mean effects into account when examining changes in collisions. Longer data collection periods pre- and post-installation would allow for regression-to-mean effects and also seasonal and time trends in traffic volume to be observed. Few studies adjusted cycle collision rates for exposure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Generally, there is a lack of high quality evidence to be able to draw firm conclusions as to the effect of cycling infrastructure on cycling collisions. There is a lack of rigorous evaluation of cycling infrastructure.

Implementation and results of a survey on safe community programs in Gangbuk-gu, Korea: focusing on participants at a local public health center

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate the current status of and problems with the Safe Community Programs in Gangbuk-gu, one of the 25 districts of the capital city of Korea.

METHODS

The study subjects were 396 individuals who were involved in Safe Community Programs between 2009 and 2011. We examined the effectiveness and willingness of respondents to participate as a safety leader of the Safe Community Program with a questionnaire. We examined the injury death rates of Gangbuk-gu by using of the death certificate data of Korea's National Statistical Office. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were used.

RESULTS

The effectiveness of programs did not differ but active participation differed significantly among subjects (p<0.05). The injury death rate of Gangbuk-gu as a whole increased during the implementation period. However, senior safety, in particular, may be a helpful program for reducing injuries in Gangbuk-gu.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the lack of active participation may be a major problem of Safe Community Programs in Gangbuk-gu. Therefore, Safe Community Programs should be expanded to the entire district of Gangbuk-gu and more active participation programs should be developed.

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) 'safe communities' approach to injury prevention has been embraced around the world as a model for co-ordinating community efforts to enhance safety and reduce injury. Approximately 150 communities throughout the world have formal 'Safe Communities' designation. It is of public health interest to determine to what degree the model is successful, and whether it reduces injury rates. This Cochrane Review is an update of a previous published version.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the WHO Safe Communities model to prevent injury in whole populations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and ZETOC. We handsearched selected journals and contacted key people from each WHO Safe Community. The last search was December 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Included studies were those conducted within a WHO Safe Community that reported changes in population injury rates within the community compared to a control community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included evaluations for 21 communities from five countries in two geographical regions in the world: Austria, Sweden and Norway, and Australia and New Zealand. Although positive results were reported for some communities, there was no consistent relationship between being a WHO designated Safe Community and subsequent changes in observed injury rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is marked inconsistency in the results of the studies included in this systematic review. While the frequency of injury in some study communities did reduce following their designation as a WHO Safe Community, there remains insufficient evidence from which to draw definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the model.The lack of consistency in results may be due to the heterogeneity of the approaches to implementing the model, varying efficacy of activities and strategies, varying intensity of implementation and methodological limitations in evaluations. While all communities included in the review fulfilled the WHO Safe Community criteria, these criteria were too general to prescribe a standardised programme of activity or evaluation methodology.Adequate documentation describing how various Safe Communities implemented the model was limited, making it unclear which factors affected success. Where a reduction in injury rates was not reported, lack of information makes it difficult to distinguish whether this was due to problems with the model or with the way in which it was implemented.

Impact of a program for the prevention of traffic accidents in a Southern Brazilian city: a model for implementation in a developing country

BACKGROUND

Traffic accidents constitute the main cause of death in the first decades of life. Traumatic brain injury is the event most responsible for the severity of these accidents. The SBN started an educational program for the prevention of traffic accidents, adapted from the American model "Think First" to the Brazilian environment, since 1995, with special effort devoted to the prevention of TBI by using seat belts and motorcycle helmets. The objective of the present study was to set up a traffic accident prevention program based on the adapted Think First and to evaluate its impact by comparing epidemiological variables before and after the beginning of the program.

METHODS

The program was executed in Maringá city, from September 2004 to August 2005, with educational actions targeting the entire population, especially teenagers and young adults. The program was implemented by building a network of information facilitators and multipliers inside the organized civil society, with widespread population dissemination. To measure the impact of the program, a specific software was developed for the storage and processing of the epidemiological variables.

RESULTS

The results showed a reduction of trauma severity due to traffic accidents after the execution of the program, mainly TBI.

CONCLUSIONS

The adapted Think First was systematically implemented and its impact measured for the first time in Brazil, revealing the usefulness of the program for reducing trauma and TBI severity in traffic accidents through public education and representing a standardized model of implementation in a developing country.

Evaluation of community-based injury prevention programmes: methodological issues and challenges

The evaluation of comprehensive community-based injury prevention programmes is complex and poses many methodological challenges. There is little consensus in contemporary literature about the most appropriate methods of evaluating these programmes. This study employed a systematic literature review to examine evaluations of 16 community-based injury prevention programmes with regard to key methodological issues and challenges. Three aspects of the evaluated programmes were analysed: assessed elements (context, structure, process, impact, and outcome); study design; and methodological issues addressed. The results showed that context, structure and process assessments were the most neglected aspects of the evaluation studies. The programmes were typically described with minimal discussion of how the context may have influenced the effectiveness. The process (activities) was described rather than evaluated against appropriate standards of comparisons. Impact evaluations adhered more closely to documented guidelines, but half of the evaluations did not include impact variables. Outcome evaluations focused on injury incidence. Most evaluations employed some qualitative methods, but the vast majority of methods used were quantitative. This study indicated that the quasi-experimental study design has become an accepted norm for the evaluation of community-based injury prevention programmes. Most of the evaluations contained explicit details of the methodology used and of the choices related to the methodology. While threats to internal validity were identified in most studies, problems related to external validity and construct validity were largely overlooked by the evaluators.

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations

BACKGROUND

The safe communities approach has been embraced around the world as a model for coordinating community efforts to enhance safety and reduce injury. Over 80 communities throughout the world have been formally designated as 'Safe Communities' by the World Health Organization. It is of public health interest to determine to what degree the model is successful, and whether its application does indeed reduce injury rates in communities to which it is introduced.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the Safe Communities model to prevent injury in whole populations, or targeted sub-groups of populations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy was based on electronic searches, handsearches of selected journals, snowballing from reference lists of selected publications and contacting a key person from each WHO-designated Safe Community.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Included studies were those conducted within a WHO Safe Community that reported changes in population injury rates within the community compared to a control community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was not appropriate, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Only seven WHO Safe Communities, of more than 80 worldwide, have undertaken controlled evaluations using objective sources of injury data. These communities represent only four countries from two geographical regions in the world: the Scandinavian countries of Sweden and Norway and the Pacific nations of Australia and New Zealand. Safe Communities in Sweden and Norway have resulted in significant reductions in injury rates. The Australian and New Zealand communities have been unable to replicate the same level of success.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests the WHO Safe Communities model is effective in reducing injuries in whole populations. However, important methodological limitations exist in all studies from which evidence can be obtained. A lack of reported detail makes it unclear which factors facilitate or hinder a programme's success, and makes uncertain, whether the success of any particular application of the model is necessarily replicable in other communities. In evaluated programmes that did not report significant decreases in injury rates, this lack of information makes it difficult to distinguish between evidence of no effect of the model, or no evidence of effect. The four countries that have evaluated their Safe Communities with a sufficiently rigorous study design have higher economic wealth and health standards and lower injury rates than much of the world. No evaluations were available from other parts of the world, despite the designation of WHO Safe Communities in countries such as South Africa, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, Canada, UK and USA. Generalisation of results of studies conducted in just four countries, to the international population needs to be done with caution. There is a need for more high-quality, methodologically strong evaluations of the model in a range of diverse communities and detailed reporting of implementation processes.

What makes community based injury prevention work? In search of evidence of effectiveness

Community based injury prevention work has become a widely accepted strategy among safety promotion specialists. Hundreds of community based injury prevention programs have been implemented since the mid-1970s, but relatively few have been evaluated rigorously, resulting in a lack of consensus regarding the effectiveness of this approach. This study sought to identify key components that contribute to the effectiveness of these programs. The objective was to gain a better understanding of the community based model for injury prevention. The study was performed as a structured review of existing evaluations of injury prevention programs that employed multiple strategies to target different age groups, environments, and situations. The results of this study suggested that there are complex relationships between the outcome and the context, structure, and process of community-wide injury prevention programs. The interconnectedness of these variables made it difficult to provide solid evidence to prioritise in terms of program effectiveness. The evaluations of multifaceted community oriented injury prevention programs were found to have many shortcomings. Meagre descriptions of community characteristics and conditions, insufficient assessment of structural program components, and failure to establish process-outcome relationships contributed to the difficulty of identifying key success factors of the programs.

A qualitative assessment methodology for road safety policy strategies

This paper proposes a qualitative assessment methodology that is comprised of a cluster analysis and an autoregression analysis that assess the effects of various road safety strategies implemented in Hong Kong over the last 10 years. The cluster analysis is first used to group over a hundred road safety projects and programs into a smaller set of meaningful road safety policy strategy clusters. These strategies, together with the trend factor, seasonal pattern, car crashworthiness and meteorological data are then used in the autoregression analysis to relate to the fatality and casualty rates of drivers, passengers, motorcyclists, and pedestrians. This method allows the evaluation of the overall effects of the road safety strategies, and the effects and relative significance of each individual strategy. The evaluation method is described, and the main findings of the study are discussed.