OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of interventions at a highway, in the occurrence and severity of injuries by traffic accidents. METHOD: It was made a comparative analysis of two cross-sectional studies in 1994 and 1996. RESULTS: In 1994 the rate was 7.96 accidents/ 100,000 vehicles and in 1996 8.49 / 100,000 vehicles. The increase was not significant (p>0.05). The rate of injured drivers in 1994 was of 2.10 / 100,000 vehicles and of 1.35 / 100,000 vehicles in 1996, which was a significant decrease (p<0.000). The self-report of use of seat belt (63.46% versus 76.6%), the small vehicles involved in accidents (7.9% versus 37.7%), nocturnal schedule (23.7% versus 31.8%) and in Mexico-Cuernavaca direction (45% versus 66.7%), were more frequent in 1996 (p<0.05). The risk of injury, using a logistic regression model, between drivers exposed to the interventions (1996) and those that were not exposed (1994) adjusted by: age, speed, use of seat belt, alcohol intake and external cause, showed a protective effect of the interventions at the highway (OR 0.42 CI95% 0.27-0.66). CONCLUSION: There is an evident need of multisectorial approaches in the study and evaluation of the interventions in the field of the traffic accidents. The present research is a clear example of the repercussions over health of interventions developed by the transportation sector at the highway.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of interventions at a highway, in the occurrence and severity of injuries by traffic accidents. METHOD: It was made a comparative analysis of two cross-sectional studies in 1994 and 1996. RESULTS: In 1994 the rate was 7.96 accidents/ 100,000 vehicles and in 1996 8.49 / 100,000 vehicles. The increase was not significant (p>0.05). The rate of injured drivers in 1994 was of 2.10 / 100,000 vehicles and of 1.35 / 100,000 vehicles in 1996, which was a significant decrease (p<0.000). The self-report of use of seat belt (63.46% versus 76.6%), the small vehicles involved in accidents (7.9% versus 37.7%), nocturnal schedule (23.7% versus 31.8%) and in Mexico-Cuernavaca direction (45% versus 66.7%), were more frequent in 1996 (p<0.05). The risk of injury, using a logistic regression model, between drivers exposed to the interventions (1996) and those that were not exposed (1994) adjusted by: age, speed, use of seat belt, alcohol intake and external cause, showed a protective effect of the interventions at the highway (OR 0.42 CI95% 0.27-0.66). CONCLUSION: There is an evident need of multisectorial approaches in the study and evaluation of the interventions in the field of the traffic accidents. The present research is a clear example of the repercussions over health of interventions developed by the transportation sector at the highway.