| Literature DB >> 33807181 |
Francisco Alonso1, Sergio A Useche2, Eliseo Valle3, Cristina Esteban1, Javier Gene-Morales1,4.
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that driving behavior and traffic safety outcomes of parents may be influenced by the extent to which they receive information and education on road safety, as well as the fact of driving with their children on board, which may increase their risk perception. However, there are no studies specifically addressing the case of crashes suffered while driving with children. Hence, this study aimed to describe the relationship between road safety education-related variables and parents' traffic safety outcomes while driving with children on board. For this cross-sectional study, data was retrieved from a sample composed of 165 Spanish parents-all of them licensed drivers-with a mean age of 45.3 years. Through binary logistic regression (logit) analysis, it was found that factors such as gender, having received road safety education (RSE), and having been sanctioned for the performance of risky driving behavior contribute to modulating the likelihood of suffering crashes while driving with children on board. Gender differences showed a riskier status for male parents. In this study, a set of risk factors explaining the involvement in traffic crashes when driving with children as passengers was identified among parents: gender, traffic sanctions, valuation, and exposure to road safety campaigns. Also, substantial limitations in the self-reported degree of received RSE were found, especially considering that risky driving behavior and traffic crash rates with children on board still have a high prevalence among parents.Entities:
Keywords: children safety; driving; parents; risk behaviors; road safety; road safety education; traffic crashes with children
Year: 2021 PMID: 33807181 PMCID: PMC8037421 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073611
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Bivariate (Spearman) correlations between study variables.
| Variable | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Age | 0.015 | −0.172 * | 0.137 | 0.159 * | 0.008 | 0.066 | 0.184 * | −0.144 | 0.004 | 0.128 | 0.123 | 0.236 ** | 0.099 |
| 2 | Educational level | − | −0.078 | −0.094 | −0.103 | −0.242 ** | −0.174 * | 0.028 | −0.237 ** | −0.138 | −0.179 * | 0.026 | −0.040 | 0.073 |
| 3 | Have you ever received road safety education? | − | 0.219 ** | 0.227 ** | −0.005 | −0.108 | −0.109 | 0.203 ** | 0.153 * | 0.013 | −0.013 | 0.058 | −0.037 | |
| 4 | Recalling of road safety education contents | − | 0.790 ** | 0.221 ** | 0.293 ** | 0.153 | −0.035 | 0.271 ** | 0.117 | −0.039 | −0.008 | −0.048 | ||
| 5 | Perceived utility of road safety education | − | 0.324 ** | 0.374 ** | 0.209 ** | 0.034 | 0.433 ** | 0.295 ** | 0.016 | −0.068 | 0.012 | |||
| 6 | Importance attributed to road safety education | − | 0.415 ** | 0.283 ** | 0.229 ** | 0.600 ** | 0.243 ** | −0.03 | 0.025 | 0.067 | ||||
| 7 | Importance attributed to the improvement of city roads | − | 0.493 ** | 0.170 * | 0.417 ** | 0.283 ** | 0.123 | 0.054 | −0.119 | |||||
| 8 | Importance attributed to the improvement of vehicles | − | 0.178 * | 0.311 ** | 0.201 * | −0.102 | 0.020 | 0.060 | ||||||
| 9 | Importance attributed to the improvement of police supervision | − | 0.246 ** | 0.222 ** | −0.151 | −0.128 | −0.105 | |||||||
| 10 | Importance attributed to the improvement of road safety education | − | 0.203 ** | 0.019 | −0.013 | 0.075 | ||||||||
| 11 | Perceived efficacy of road safety campaigns | − | −0.117 | −0.090 | 0.007 | |||||||||
| 12 | Crashes suffered as a passenger (5 years) | − | 0.405 ** | 0.074 | ||||||||||
| 13 | Crashes suffered as a driver with children on board (5 years) | − | 0.227 ** | |||||||||||
| 14 | Have you ever been fined with children on board? (5 years) | − |
Notes for the table: * Correlation is significant at p < 0.05 level. ** Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 level.
Logistic regression model (logit) to explain traffic crashes suffered by parents while driving with children.
| Variables in the Equation | B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp(B) | CI (95%) Exp(B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Gender (Man a) | 0.951 | 0.379 | 6.287 | 1 | 0.012 * | 2.589 | 1.231 | 5.444 |
| Have you ever received road safety education (Yes b)? | −1.304 | 0.516 | 6.397 | 1 | 0.011 * | 0.271 | 0.099 | 0.746 |
| Traffic fines received with children on board (5 years) | −1.236 | 0.458 | 7.295 | 1 | 0.007 ** | 0.290 | 0.118 | 0.712 |
| Crashes suffered as passenger (5 years) | 0.663 | 0.232 | 8.17 | 1 | 0.004 ** | 1.940 | 1.232 | 3.056 |
| Perceived efficacy of road safety campaigns | −0.066 | 0.033 | 3.983 | 1 | 0.046 * | 0.936 | 0.877 | 0.999 |
| Constant | 2.207 | 0.858 | 6.621 | 1 | 0.010 ** | 9.093 | ||
Dependent variable: Having suffered driving crashes with children on board in the previous 5 years (positive cases). Notes for the table: a,b Dummy variables. Success categories = a Being a male, b Having received road safety education (RSE); ** Significant at the level p < 0.01; * Significant at the level p < 0.05.
Figure 1Observed groups (Logit) and predicted probabilities.