Observational studyTraffic injury prevention2022
Distracted pedestrian behavior: An observational study of risk by situational environments.
Observational study in Traffic injury prevention, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePedestrian-related death rates are increasing in the United States, partly due to increased use of distracting smartphones by pedestrians. Previous research documents high frequency of smartphone use while crossing streets near college campuses and in downtown business districts, but little is known about distracted pedestrian behavior in other urban environments. The current study used observational methods to examine and compare distracted pedestrian behavior in four urban areas - near an urban college campus, in a downtown commercial business district, near middle and high schools, and in entertainment districts - as well as examining whether the occurrence of distraction was associated with unsafe crossing behaviors.
methodsWe observed 112 intersections in 46 downtown, 30 school, 25 entertainment district, and 11 college campus-area intersections. Coders recorded distraction, crossing safety, pedestrian demographics, and traffic volume. Chi-square tests compared pedestrian characteristics by intersection type. Log binomial regressions estimated risk ratios (RRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between pedestrians walking alone and traffic volume with distracted crossing behavior, adjusting for age and gender. Similar models examined risk of unsafe crossing behavior by distraction behavior. All models were stratified by intersection type.
resultsDistraction incidence was highest in campus locations (52.9%) and lowest in entertainment districts (16.2%). Walking alone was associated with a 45% higher risk of distraction (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.30-1.62), although the increased association was limited to entertainment locations (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.25-2.08) and was significantly decreased in all other locations. Higher traffic volume was associated with lower risk of distraction in downtown locations (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85) but higher distraction risk in entertainment locations (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.27-2.31). Associations between distraction and unsafe crossing behaviors were minimal.
conclusionDistracted pedestrian behavior occurs at different rates and in different circumstances, depending on the setting. These results offer valuable data to inform intervention programs that target appropriate populations in appropriate locations.
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.