Safe Drive Stay Alive : exploring effectiveness of a real-world driving intervention for pre-drivers and the utility of the health action process approach
MetadataShow full item record
Young drivers are greatly overrepresented in road traffic collisions (RTCs) worldwide. Interventions attempt to change driving-related behaviours to reduce injuries and deaths from RTCs. The current study evaluated the effectiveness of the well-established Fife Safe Drive Stay Alive (SDSA) practice-based intervention on determinants of driving behaviour using the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model. Adolescent participants (predominantly pre-drivers) attending the SDSA intervention from schools and colleges in Fife, Scotland, were invited to complete an evaluation at baseline and at 3 months exploring motivational determinants of driving behaviour (e.g. risk perception). Intervention content was examined for behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Eighty-seven participants completed both baseline and follow-up evaluations. The motivational HAPA model variables predicted driving intentions. There was no significant overall effect of the SDSA intervention between baseline and 3 month follow-up. Seven negatively-framed BCTs were utilised in the intervention. The effectiveness of SDSA is questioned, however the study supports the use of the HAPA model in explaining driving intentions and therefore may usefully inform driving interventions.
Dale , H L , Ozakinci , G & Scott , C 2016 , ' Safe Drive Stay Alive : exploring effectiveness of a real-world driving intervention for pre-drivers and the utility of the health action process approach ' Injury Prevention . DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041831
Copyright © 2016 the Authors. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created, accepted version manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at injuryprevention.bmj.com / https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041831