Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33596267›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Mobile phone applications use while driving in Ukraine: Self-reported frequencies and psychosocial factors underpinning this risky behaviour.

Tetiana Hill, Amanda N Stephens, Mark J M Sullman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. 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. 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.

Tetiana HillHertfordshire Business School, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4234-5771
Amanda N StephensMonash University Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Mark J M SullmanDepartment of Social Sciences, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the fact that mobile phones have been transformed over the last decade into information and communication hubs that are fundamental to modern life, there is little information on how this has impacted on mobile phone use while driving. The present study was conducted in Ukraine, where this risky behaviour remains a common driving practice, despite legislative bans. A total of 220 (male = 82%; mean age = 35.53; SD = 10.54) drivers completed an online survey assessing frequency of engaging in a range of mobile phone applications while driving. Four variables of the theory of planned behaviour (general attitude and intention towards phone use while driving, social norms towards mobile phone use, perceived behavioural control, the specific beliefs about being able to engage in distracting activities and drive safely), and type A behaviour pattern were also collected. The results showed that, during the last year, 65% of drivers had read a text message and 49% had written a text using mobile phone applications. Likewise, a substantial proportion of the sample reported using social media while driving, by checking (34%), sending or typing a post (25%) on social network applications. Hierarchical stepwise regressions showed that a positive attitude towards mobile phone use while driving and beliefs about being able to drive safely and write or read a text message were significantly associated with the mobile phone applications use while driving. No associations were found between the type A behaviour pattern and mobile phone applications use.

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficAutomobile DrivingCell Phone UseAdultAgedCell PhoneFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsRisk-TakingSelf ReportText MessagingUkraineYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33596267
PMCPMC7888621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.