↓ Skip to main content

Safety education of pedestrians for injury prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Safety education of pedestrians for injury prevention
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001531
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Duperrex, Ian Roberts, Frances Bunn, Duperrex, Olivier, Roberts, Ian, Bunn, Frances

Abstract

Each year about one million people die and about 10 million are seriously injured on the world's roads. Educational measures to teach pedestrians how to cope with the traffic environment are considered to be an essential component of any prevention strategy, and pedestrian education has been recommended in many countries. However, as resources available for road safety are limited, a key question concerns the relative effectiveness of different prevention strategies. To quantify the effectiveness of pedestrian safety education programmes in preventing pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions. We searched the Injuries Group specialised register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, TRANSPORT, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, PSYCHLIT, SPECTR, and the WHO database on the Internet. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews and papers and contacted experts in the field. Most database searching was conducted in 1999. Randomised controlled trials of safety education programmes for pedestrians of all ages. One reviewer screened records. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of trials. Because of differences in the types of interventions and outcome measures used in the trials, meta-analyses were not carried out. We found 15 randomised-controlled trials of pedestrian safety education programmes, conducted between 1976 and 1997. Methodological quality of the included trials was generally poor. Allocation concealment was adequate in three trials, outcome assessment was blinded in eight, and in most of the studies large numbers of participants were lost to follow-up. Study participants were children in 14 studies and institutionalised adults in one. Eight studies involved the direct education of participants, seven used parents as educators. No trials were conducted in a developing country and there were none of pedestrian safety training in the elderly. None of the included trials assessed the effect of pedestrian safety education on the occurrence of pedestrian injury but six trials assessed the effect on observed behaviour. Some of these trials showed evidence of behavioural change following pedestrian safety education but it is difficult to predict what effect this might have on pedestrian injury risk. Pedestrian safety education can result in improvement in children's knowledge and can change observed road crossing behaviour but whether this reduces the risk of pedestrian motor vehicle collision and injury occurrence is unknown. There is evidence that changes in safety knowledge and observed behaviour decline with time suggesting that safety education must be repeated at regular intervals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
Kazakhstan 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 73 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 20%
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Unspecified 7 9%
Other 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 41%
Unspecified 10 13%
Psychology 10 13%
Social Sciences 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Other 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,185,834
of 12,287,089 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,967
of 8,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,455
of 198,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,287,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 198,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.