ArticleBMC public health2012
Evaluation of interventions on road traffic injuries in Peru: a qualitative approach.
Article in BMC public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventions to Improve Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety in Latin America: a Systematic Review and Metasummary.Journal of healthy eating and active living · 2022Article
- State of pedestrian road safety in Uganda: a qualitative study of existing interventions.African health sciences · 2021Article
- Meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence in road traffic injury prevention: a scoping review of qualitative studies (2000 to 2019).Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2020Article
- Comparison of Quality of Life and Work Ability of Taxi and Motorcycle Taxi Drivers: Evidence from Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of interventions on road traffic injuries (RTI) going beyond the assessment of impact to include factors underlying success or failure is an important complement to standard impact evaluations. We report here how we used a qualitative approach to assess current interventions implemented to reduce RTIs in Peru.
methodsWe performed in-depth interviews with policymakers and technical officers involved in the implementation of RTI interventions to get their insight on design, implementation and evaluation aspects. We then conducted a workshop with key stakeholders to analyze the results of in-depth interviews, and to further discuss and identify key programmatic considerations when designing and implementing RTI interventions. We finally performed brainstorming sessions to assess potential system-wide effects of a selected intervention (Zero Tolerance), and to identify adaptation and redesign needs for this intervention.
resultsKey programmatic components were consistently identified that should be considered when designing and implementing RTI interventions. They include effective and sustained political commitment and planning; sufficient and sustained budget allocation; training, supervision, monitoring and evaluation of implemented policies; multisectoral participation; and strong governance and accountability. Brainstorming sessions revealed major negative effects of the selected intervention on various system building blocks.
conclusionsOur approach revealed substantial caveats in current RTI interventions in Peru, and fundamental negative effects on several components of the sectors and systems involved. It also highlighted programmatic issues that should be applied to guarantee an effective implementation and evaluation of these policies. The findings from this study were discussed with key stakeholders for consideration in further designing and planning RTI control interventions in Peru.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.