| Literature DB >> 30679149 |
Emre Sezgin1, Simon Lin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safe driving training for adolescents aims to prevent injury and promote their well-being. In that regard, information and communication technologies have been used to understand adolescent driving behavior and develop interventions.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent health; assessment; driving safety; technology-based intervention; teen driving
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30679149 PMCID: PMC6365877 DOI: 10.2196/11942
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Information collection and required hardware for in-vehicle technologies.
| Data type | Source | Hardware |
| Weather conditions | National weather APIa service | Wireless internet connection, modem |
| Road type (residential, city, rural) | Map API service | Wireless internet connection, modem |
| Traffic light status | Camera | Smartphone, external hardware |
| Traffic sign detection | Camera | Smartphone, external hardware |
| Lane-marking detection | Camera | Smartphone, external hardware |
| Traffic condition | Web source via traffic API service | Wireless internet connection, modem |
| Traveling distances | GPSb | Smartphone, black box |
| Changes in velocity | GPS, accelerometer | Smartphone, black box |
| Changes in acceleration | Accelerometer, gyrometer | Smartphone, black box |
| Changes in geolocation | GPS | Smartphone, black box |
| Heart rate, electrocardiogram | Monitoring sensor | Smartwatch |
| Seatbelt | Built-in sensor | External hardware |
| Light exposure | Camera, light sensor | Smartphone, external hardware |
| Accident detection (rollover and impact) | Accelerometer, gyrometer, magnetometer | Smartphone, black box |
| Acceleration, braking, and cornering behavior | Accelerometer, GPS, gyrometer | Smartphone, black box |
| Following distance | Camera, infrared sensor | Smartphone, external hardware |
| Driver identification | Camera | Smartphone, black box |
| Traveling pattern | GPS, magnetometer | Smartphone, black box |
aAPI: application programming interface.
bGPS: global positioning system.
Figure 1Review flow diagram.
Literature summary grouped by the type of technology used.
| Study | Country | Method | Sample and size | Significant findings for technology use | Identified barriers to technology use | |
| McGehee, 2007 [ | United States | Driving data analysis (technology used: DriveCam) | 26 teens (16-17 years old) | Technology with periodic feedback and parental involvement were effective in reducing unsafe driving. | N/Aa | |
| Musicant, 2010 [ | Israel | Driving data analysis | 32 young drivers (17-24 years old) | Availability of feedback reduced event frequency by 50%, | N/A | |
| Carney, 2010 [ | United States | Driving data analysis (technology used: DriveCam) | 18 teens (16 years old) | Intervention with visual feedback and weekly reports and videos to teens and parents increased safe driving. | N/A | |
| Prato, 2010 [ | Israel | Driving data analysis and survey | 62 teen-parent pairs | Different sexes exhibited different risky behaviors; Tendency to seek sensation affects risky driving; Driving behavior of parents, duration of supervised driving, and level of parental monitoring influenced risky behavior. | N/A | |
| Farmer, 2010 [ | United States | Driving data analysis | 85 teens (16-17 years old) | Reinforcement from parents was necessary for sustainable safe driving; Push notifications (emailing report cards and personalized feedback) were more effective than pull notifications (website access). | Alerts can be annoying; Too much information provided could be discouraging for parents | |
| Guttman, 2011 [ | Israel | Interview | 906 parents of young drivers (17-24 years old) | Early stages of driving were considered a better time for installing the technology; Financial benefits and environmental considerations were perceived as incentives; Security of data and privacy of teens were common concerns; Technology may promote parent-teen driver communication; Parents should have access to monitoring data. | Cost; Security and privacy concerns; Confronting the young driver | |
| Simons-Morton, 2013 [ | United States | Driving data analysis and survey (technology used: DriveCam) | 90 parent-teen couples (~16 years old) | Parental involvement increases effectiveness. | N/A | |
| Simons-Morton, 2015 [ | United States | Driving data analysis and survey | 42 teens (~16 years old) | Social norms were important in risky behavior; Driving alone was riskier than with passengers. | N/A | |
| Gesser-Edelsburg, 2013 [ | Israel | Interview | 137 teens (15-18 years old) | In-vehicle technology was an objective and credible source for driving; Replaced the role model of parents with objective feedback from the device. | Trust issues within parent-teen relationship; Invasion of privacy; Stress from parental punishment based on feedback; Doubts about the technology improving driving skills | |
| Farah, 2013 [ | Israel | Event frequency analysis (technology used: GreenRoad Tech) | 212 teen-parent pairs | Periodic driving feedback, parental involvement, and guidance were effective in reducing risky driving. | N/A | |
| Weiss, 2018 [ | United States | Interview (technology used: advanced driver-assistance system) | 24 teens (16-19 years old) and 12 parents | Teens were knowledgeable about and comfortable with the technology; Teen and parents preferred using a non–advanced driver-assistance system car to improve driving skills. | Teens are skeptical about abilities of the technology, knowing its limitations; The idea of giving control to a “machine” is not positively perceived | |
| Musicant, 2015 [ | Israel | Interview and survey | 24 scouts and 22 cadets (17-19 years old) | Group incentives and low cost improved uptake of in-vehicle technology. | Forgetfulness; Battery consumption; Lack of incentives | |
| Creaser, 2015 [ | United States | Survey | 274 teens and 272 parents | The blocking app could be effective for new drivers; Parental involvement with the app increased the effectiveness. | Bypassing the app or using a friend’s phone | |
| Kervick, 2015 [ | Ireland | Survey | 333 teens (18-24 years old) | Perceived gains from use of the app and social influence affected acceptance of the driving support app. | N/A | |
| Steinberger, 2017 [ | Australia | Design analysis and interview | 24 young men (~20 years old) | Economic and anticipatory driving were engaging; Drivers expected a challenge from the game; Interaction with others was important; Personalization was desired | N/A | |
| Steinberger, 2017 [ | Australia | Driving data analysis and interview | 32 young men (18-25 years old) | Ambient feedback with colors was useful. | Instant visual feedback can be distracting; Screen positioning can be distracting | |
aN/A: not available.