Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26774042›Full record

ArticleAccident; analysis and prevention2016

Driving with pets and motor vehicle collision involvement among older drivers: A prospective population-based study.

Carrie Huisingh, Emily B Levitan, Marguerite R Irvin, Cynthia Owsley, Gerald McGwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Accident; analysis and prevention, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carrie HuisinghDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States. Electronic address: huisingh@uab.edu.
Emily B LevitanDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States.
Marguerite R IrvinDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States.
Cynthia OwsleyDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States.
Gerald McGwinDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States.

Funding

Pilot CoreP30AG022838 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI BALL, KARLENE K · 2003 to 2020
$5.7M
Older Drivers: An Evidence-Basis for Licensure StandardsR01EY018966 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI OWSLEY, CYNTHIA · 2008 to 2018
$5.7M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY018966NEI NIH HHS R01-EY18966NIA NIH HHS P30 AG022838NIA NIH HHS P30-AG22838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDistracted driving is a major cause of motor vehicle collision (MVC) involvement. Pets have been identified as potential distraction to drivers, particularly in the front. This type of distraction could be worse for those with impairment in the cognitive aspects of visual processing. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between driving with pets and rates of motor vehicle collision involvement in a cohort of older drivers.

methodsA three-year prospective study was conducted in a population-based sample of 2000 licensed drivers aged 70 years and older. At the baseline visit, a trained interviewer asked participants about pet ownership, whether they drive with pets, how frequently, and where the pet sits in the vehicle. Motor vehicle collision (MVC) involvement during the three-year study period was obtained from the Alabama Department of Public Safety. At-fault status was determined by the police officer who arrived on the scene. Participants were followed until the earliest of death, driving cessation, or end of the study period. Poisson regression was used to calculate crude and adjusted rate ratios (RR) examining the association between pet ownership, presence of a pet in a vehicle, frequency of driving with a pet, and location of the pet inside with vehicle with any and at-fault MVC involvement. We examined whether the associations differed by higher order visual processing impairment status, as measured by Useful Field of View, Trails B, and Motor-free Visual Perception Test.

resultsRates of crash involvement were similar for older adults who have ever driven with a pet compared to those who never drove with their pet (RR=1.15, 95% CI 0.76-1.75). Drivers who reported always or sometimes driving with their pet had higher MVC rates compared to pet owners who never drive with a pet, but this association was not statistically significant (RR=1.39, 95% CI 0.86-2.24). In terms of location, those reporting having a pet frequently ride in the front of the vehicle had similar rates of MVC involvement compared to those who did not drive with a pet in the front. A similar pattern of results was observed for at-fault MVCs. This association was not modified by visual processing impairment status.

conclusionThe current study demonstrates a positive but non-significant association between frequently driving with pets and MVC involvement. More research is needed, particularly on restraint use and whether the pet was in the car at the time of the crash, to help characterize the public safety benefit of regulations on driving with pets.

Indexed as

PetsAccidents, TrafficAgedAged, 80 and overAlabamaAnimalsAttentionAutomobile DrivingCohort StudiesContrast SensitivityFemaleHumansMaleMotor VehiclesProspective StudiesRisk FactorsDriver distractionMVCOlder driversPets

Identifiers

PMID26774042
PMCPMC4738176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.