Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30291154›Full record

ArticleInjury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention2019

Challenges of enforcing cell phone use while driving laws among police: a qualitative study.

Toni Marie Rudisill, Adam D Baus, Traci Jarrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. A randomized trial of behavioral interventions yielding sustained reductions in distracted driving.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Trial
  3. Teen Texting While Driving in Association With All-Driver and Young-Driver Cellphone Laws.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

3 authors.

Toni Marie RudisillDepartment of Epidemiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA trudisill@hsc.wvu.edu.
Adam D BausDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
Traci JarrettDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.

Funding

West Virginia IDEA-CTRU54GM104942 · NIGMS · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI GARY O RANKIN · 2012 to 2026
$81.0M
West Virginia University Injury Control Research CenterR49CE002109 · CE · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI BOSSARTE, ROBERT M · 2012 to 2018
$5.7M
NCIPC CDC HHS R49 CE002109NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCell phone use while driving laws do not appear to be heavily enforced in the USA. This study seeks to gain law enforcements' perspective and learn potential barriers to cell phone law enforcement.

methodsQualitative interviews (ie, focus groups) were conducted with officers (N=19) from five West Virginia law enforcement agencies. The officers who participated were >18 years of age, sworn into their departments and employed in law enforcement for >1 year. Focus group sessions lasted 45-60 min and followed a standardised, pilot-tested script. These sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Qualitative content analysis was employed among three researchers to determine themes surrounding enforcement.

resultsFour themes emerged including current culture, the legal system, the nature of police work and issues with prevention. Specific barriers to enforcement included cultural norms, lack of perceived support from courts/judges, different laws between states, the need for a general distracted driving law, unclear legislation, officers' habits and perceived risk, wanting to maintain a positive relationship with the public, not being able to see the driver (impediments of vehicle design, time of day), phones having multiple functions and not knowing what drivers are actually doing, risk of crashing during traffic stops and lack of resources. Prevention activities were debated, and most felt that technological advancements implemented by cell phone manufacturers may deter use.

conclusionsNumerous barriers to cell phone law enforcement exist. Legislation could be amended to facilitate enforcement. Prevention opportunities exist to deter cell phone use while driving.

Indexed as

Law EnforcementPoliceAccidents, TrafficAdultAutomobile DrivingCell Phone UseCriminal LawDistracted DrivingFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchVideo RecordingWest Virginiaenforcementlegislationpolicypublic healthqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30291154
PMCPMC6486438

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.