IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0060158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Advocacy for Pedestrian Safety Study: Cluster Randomised Trial Evaluating a Political Advocacy Approach to Reduce Pedestrian Injuries in Deprived Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Ronan A Lyons
  • Denise Kendrick
  • Elizabeth M L Towner
  • Carol Coupland
  • Mike Hayes
  • Nicola Christie
  • Judith Sleney
  • Sarah Jones
  • Richard Kimberlee
  • Sarah E Rodgers
  • Samantha Turner
  • Mariana Brussoni
  • Yana Vinogradova
  • Tinnu Sarvotham
  • Steven Macey

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether advocacy targeted at local politicians leads to action to reduce the risk of pedestrian injury in deprived areas. Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: 239 electoral wards in 57 local authorities in England and Wales. Participants: 617 elected local politicians. Interventions: Intervention group politicians were provided with tailored information packs, including maps of casualty sites, numbers injured and a synopsis of effective interventions. Main outcome measures: 25–30 months post intervention, primary outcomes included: electoral ward level: percentage of road traffic calmed; proportion with new interventions; school level: percentage with 20 mph zones, Safe Routes to School, pedestrian training or road safety education; politician level: percentage lobbying for safety measures. Secondary outcomes included politicians’ interest and involvement in injury prevention, and facilitators and barriers to implementation. Results: Primary outcomes did not significantly differ: % difference in traffic calming (0.07, 95%CI: −0.07 to 0.20); proportion of schools with 20 mph zones (RR 1.47, 95%CI: 0.93 to 2.32), Safe Routes to School (RR 1.34, 95%CI: 0.83 to 2.17), pedestrian training (RR 1.23, 95%CI: 0.95 to 1.61) or other safety education (RR 1.16, 95%CI: 0.97 to 1.39). Intervention group politicians reported greater interest in child injury prevention (RR 1.09, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.16), belief in potential to help prevent injuries (RR 1.36, 95%CI 1.16 to 1.61), particularly pedestrian safety (RR 1.55, 95%CI 1.19 to 2.03). 63% of intervention politicians reported supporting new pedestrian safety schemes. The majority found the advocacy information surprising, interesting, effectively presented, and could identify suitable local interventions. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative approach to translational public health by targeting local politicians in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention package was positively viewed and raised interest but changes in interventions were not statistically significance. Longer term supported advocacy may be needed. Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91381117

Suggested Citation

  • Ronan A Lyons & Denise Kendrick & Elizabeth M L Towner & Carol Coupland & Mike Hayes & Nicola Christie & Judith Sleney & Sarah Jones & Richard Kimberlee & Sarah E Rodgers & Samantha Turner & Mariana B, 2013. "The Advocacy for Pedestrian Safety Study: Cluster Randomised Trial Evaluating a Political Advocacy Approach to Reduce Pedestrian Injuries in Deprived Communities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0060158
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060158
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060158&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0060158?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0060158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.