| Literature DB >> 31910212 |
Pablo Martínez1,2,3,4,5, Daniela Contreras1, Mónica Moreno1.
Abstract
As the resources for road safety in developing countries are scarce and unevenly distributed, vulnerable road users -such as the elderly- may be particularly at risk of road traffic deaths. To date, the impact of road safety measures over the rate of road traffic deaths in older adults (60 years or older), considering the within-country socioeconomic inequalities, has not been explored in developing nations. This study takes the Chilean case as an example -with its 2005 traffic law reform as one of the road safety measures investigated-, in which open data available from official national sources for all its 13 regions over the 2002-2013 period were used for a multilevel interrupted time-series analysis. A statistically significant secular reduction of the rates of road traffic deaths in the elderly population was found (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91 to 0.99), but no evidence for a significant intercept or slope change after the traffic law reform was observed. Regions with the highest number of traffic offenses prosecuted in local police courts had lower rates of road traffic deaths in older adults (IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00), and those regions in the third (IRR 1.61, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.25) and the fifth (IRR 1.66, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.54) quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation had higher rates of road traffic deaths in the elderly. Such findings strongly support the conceptualization of the road safety of seniors in developing countries as a social equity issue, with implications for the design of traffic regulations and road environments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31910212 PMCID: PMC6946134 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Major investments in road infrastructure in Chile, 2002–2013.
| Major Public Road Works |
|---|
| 1. Installation of physical elements such as traffic lights, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, overpasses and public lighting on busy roads. |
Description of the deprivation index and related variables.
| Variables | Notation | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deprivation index | ( | 0.00 | 2.0 | -5.65 | 5.42 |
| Individual poverty | ( | 22.30 | 6.79 | 9.43 | 39.57 |
| Insufficient schooling | ( | 63.61 | 6.14 | 50.74 | 75.32 |
| Unemployment | ( | 4.32 | 1.39 | 1.25 | 8.17 |
| Crimes | ( | 2428.20 | 509.65 | 1114.01 | 3766.12 |
SD, standard deviation; Min, minimum; Max, maximum.
Overall summary statistics.
| Variables | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Counts of road traffic deaths in older adults | 24.50 | 23.71 | 0.00 | 110.00 |
| Time | 1.50 | 3.46 | -4.00 | 7.00 |
| Chilean traffic law reform | 0.58 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Traffic offenses | 7.53 | 1.49 | 2.01 | 12.32 |
| Investment in road infrastructure | 1.12 | 0.47 | -0.12 | 4.06 |
| Deprivation index | 2.99 | 1.42 | 1.00 | 5.00 |
| Traffic offenses | -0.00 | 2.54 | -2.88 | 4.99 |
| Investment in road infrastructure | -0.00 | 0.87 | -0.96 | 2.51 |
| Deprivation index | 2.85 | 1.41 | 1.00 | 5.00 |
| Log of vehicles per capita | 2.60 | 1.01 | 0.20 | 5.15 |
SD, standard deviation; Min, minimum; Max, maximum; PMC, person-mean centered; GMC, grand-mean centered.
Fig 1Average national rates of road traffic deaths in elderly over study period (2002–2013), with pre- and post-traffic law reform trends.
Generalized linear mixed models for rates of road traffic deaths in older adults per 10,000 vehicles.
| Covariates | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | |
| Constant | 1.24 | 1.36 (0.94, 1.95) | 1.01 (0.67, 1.53) |
| Time | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| Traffic law reform | 1.09 (0.94, 1.27) | 1.11 (0.95, 1.29) | 1.11 (0.95, 1.29) |
| Time × Traffic law reform | 0.99 (0.94, 1.04) | 0.98 (0.93, 1.03) | 0.98 (0.93, 1.03) |
| Traffic offenses | 0.99 (0.95, 1.03) | 0.99 (0.95, 1.03) | |
| Investment in road infrastructure | 1.01 (0.86, 1.19) | 1.01 (0.86, 1.19) | |
| 2nd deprivation quintile | 1.02 (0.89, 1.16) | 1.02 (0.90, 1.17) | |
| 3rd deprivation quintile | 0.93 (0.82, 1.07) | 0.94 (0.82, 1.08) | |
| 4th deprivation quintile | 0.95 (0.82, 1.10) | 0.96 (0.83, 1.10) | |
| 5th deprivation quintile | 0.97 (0.83, 1.13) | 0.97 (0.83, 1.13) | |
| Traffic offenses | 0.95 | ||
| Investment in road infrastructure | 0.94 (0.81, 1.10) | ||
| 2nd deprivation quintile | 1.29 (0.90, 1.85) | ||
| 3rd deprivation quintile | 1.61 | ||
| 4th deprivation quintile | 1.39 (0.98, 1.97) | ||
| 5th deprivation quintile | 1.66 | ||
| Constant | 0.10 (0.04) | 0.10 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.01) |
| Proportional reduction in variance | - | -0.10% | 76.46% |
IRR, incidence rate ratio (fixed part of the models); 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.
Data for the random part of the models are variance (standard error).
aModel 1, basic model (time + traffic law reform + time × traffic law reform).
bModel 2, model 1 + person-mean centered covariates.
cModel 3, model 2 + grand-mean centered covariates.
*p-value > .05.
**p-value > .01.