ArticleBMC public health2024
Validity across four common street-crossing distraction indicators to predict pedestrian safety.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Behaviour of motorcyclists and bicyclists before and after a road safety campaign, China.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple distraction indicators have been applied to measure street-crossing distraction but their validities in predicting pedestrian safety are poorly understood.
methodsBased on a video-based observational study, we compared the validity of four commonly used distraction indicators (total duration of distraction while crossing a street, proportion of distracted time over total street-crossing time, duration of the longest distraction time, and total number of distractions) in predicting three pedestrian safety outcomes (near-crash incidence, frequency of looking left and right, and speed crossing the street) across three types of distraction (mobile phone use, talking to other pedestrians, eating/drinking/smoking). Change in Harrell's C statistic was calculated to assess the validity of each distraction indicator based on multivariable regression models including only covariates and including both covariates and the distraction indicator.
resultsHeterogeneous capacities in predicting the three safety outcomes across the four distraction indicators were observed: 1) duration of the longest distraction time was most predictive for the occurrence of near-crashes and looks left and right among pedestrians with all three types of distraction combined and talking with other pedestrians (Harrell's C statistic changes ranged from 0.0310 to 0.0335, P < 0.05), and for the occurrence of near-crashes for pedestrians involving mobile phone use (Harrell's C statistic change: 0.0053); 2) total duration of distraction was most predictive for speed crossing the street among pedestrians with the combination and each of the three types of distraction (Harrell's C statistic changes ranged from 0.0037 to 0.0111, P < 0.05), frequency of looking left and right among pedestrians distracted by mobile phone use (Harrell's C statistic change: 0.0115), and the occurrence of near-crash among pedestrians eating, drinking, or smoking (Harrell's C statistic change: 0.0119); and 3) the total number of distractions was the most predictive indicator of frequency of looking left and right among pedestrians eating, drinking, or smoking (Harrell's C statistic change: 0.0013). Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust to change in grouping criteria of the four distraction indicators.
conclusionsFuture research should consider the pedestrian safety outcomes and type of distractions to select the best distraction indicator.
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.