The Dangers of Distracted Driving: A Substudy of Patient Perception Data From the DRIVSAFE Observational Study

Abstract

Objective: To determine how fracture clinic patients perceive the dangers of distracted driving.

Design: Analysis of patient perception subset data from the original DRIVSAFE study; a large, multicenter cross-sectional study, surveying fracture clinic patients about distracted driving.

Setting: Four Level 1 Canadian trauma center fracture clinics.

Patient selection criteria: English-speaking patients with a valid Canadian driver's license and a traumatic musculoskeletal injury sustained in the past 6 months.

Outcome measures and comparisons: Primary outcome was patients' safety ratings of driving distractions. As per the original DRIVSAFE study, patients were categorized as distraction-prone or distraction-averse using their questionnaire responses and published crash-risk odds ratios (ORs). A regression analysis was performed to identify associations with unsafe driving perceptions.

Results: The study included 1378 patients, 749 (54.3%) male and 614 (44.6%) female. The average age was 45.8 ± 17.0 years (range 16-87). Sending electronic messages was perceived as unsafe by 92.9% (1242/1337) of patients, while reading them was seen as unsafe by 81.2% (1086/1337). Approximately three-quarters of patients viewed making (78.9%, 1061/1344) and accepting (74.8%, 998/1335) calls on handheld mobile phones as unsafe. However, 31.0% (421/1356) of patients believed that they had no differences in their driving ability when talking on the phone while 13.1% (175/1340) reported no driving differences when texting. Younger age (OR, 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-0.96], P < 0.001), driving experience (OR, 1.06 [95% CI 1.02-1.09], P < 0.001), and distraction-prone drivers (OR, 3.79 [95% CI 2.91-4.94], P < 0.001) were associated with unsafe driving perceptions.

Conclusions: There is a clear association between being prone to distractions and unsafe driving perceptions, with distraction-prone drivers being 3.8 times more likely to perceive driving distractions as safe. This information could potentially influence the appropriate delivery and content of future educational efforts to change the perception of driving distractions and thereby reduce distracted driving.

Level of evidence: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

FIGURE 1.

Patients' perceptions on the “safety” of different driving distractions involving talking on the phone.

FIGURE 2.

Patients' perceptions on the “safety” of different driving distractions involving sending electronic messages.

FIGURE 3.

Patients' perceptions on the “safety” of different driving distractions.