ArticleHeliyon2025
Understanding risk perceptions of e-scooter use: E-scooter users and non-users.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
E-scooters share the roads with other users, making it crucial to understand how these different road users perceive the risky behaviors of e-scooter riders. While perceptions of risk situations caused by the e-scooter rider are likely complex and multifaceted, previous research has not adequately clarified these perspectives. Additionally, the specific roles of assessment tools in describing each distinct risk scenario have yet to be thoroughly examined. This study analyzed the validity of existing risk assessments by examining e-scooter risk perceptions among both users and non-users, grouped according to riding experience (non-users: fewer than five rides; users: five or more rides). The assessment included three primary analyses: (1) a comparison of perceived risk and perceived control across two descriptive assessment tools (text-based and video-based); (2) an examination of the relationships among perceived risk, perceived control, and willingness to share the road; and (3) an analysis of differences in how e-scooter users and non-users prioritize evaluation criteria when assessing specific risky situations. Participants (20 e-scooter users and 20 non-users) evaluated 14 risky scenarios. Data on perceived risk and willingness to share were collected for each scenario, while perceived control was assessed once after viewing all 14 scenarios. Analyses were conducted using SPSS, with paired t-tests to assess differences across assessment tools, 2-tailed correlation tests to examine relationships among variables, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to rank the importance of different evaluation criteria by group. The results of the study confirmed that participants' risk perceptions varied depending on the assessment tool used to describe risk. Additionally, it demonstrated that road user experience influences various perceptions of risk. The results underscore the importance of selecting appropriate assessment tools for effective risk communication and assessment strategies and emphasize the need to complementarily use various descriptive assessment tools as necessary.
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.