ArticleAnnals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference
Estimates of prevalence and risk associated with inattention and distraction based upon in situ naturalistic data.
Article in Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference. 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.
- Gaze Zone Classification for Driving Studies Using YOLOv8 Image Classification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Psychosocial factors associated with the self-reported frequency of cell phone use while driving in Iran.PloS one · 2021Article
- Naturalistic Driving Study in Brazil: An Analysis of Mobile Phone Use Behavior while Driving.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- What is the difference between perceived and actual risk of distracted driving? A field study on a real highway.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
By using in situ naturalistic driving data, estimates of prevalence and risk can be made regarding driver populations' secondary task distractions and crash rates. Through metadata analysis, three populations of drivers (i.e., adult light vehicle, teenaged light vehicle, and adult heavy vehicle) were compared regarding frequency of secondary task behavior and the associated risk for safety-critical incidents. Relative risk estimates provide insight into the risk associated with engaging in a single task. When such risk is considered in combination with frequency of use, it sheds additional light on those secondary tasks that create the greatest overall risk to driving safety. The results show that secondary tasks involving manual typing, texting, dialing, reaching for an object, or reading are dangerous for all three populations. Additionally, novice teen drivers have difficulty in several tasks that the other two populations do not, including eating and external distractions. Truck drivers also perform a number of risky "mobile office" types of tasks, including writing, not seen in the other populations. Implications are described for policy makers and designers of in-vehicle and nomadic, portable systems.
Identifiers
24776227PMC4001675What 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.