RF Safe

Prevalence and correlates of cell phone use among Texas drivers.

Preventive medicine reports · 2015 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream
UnclearLow evidencePaper 2979

Among 1280 observed vehicles, the overall prevalence of any cell phone use while driving was 18.7%. Any cell phone use and talking tended to decline from 2011 to 2013, while texting seemed to increase. Cell phone use was more likely among female drivers (OR=1…

Study snapshot

PublicationPreventive medicine reports · 2015
Study typecross_sectional
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Cell phone use while driving restricts peripheral awareness and impairs reaction time. This study assessed the 3-year prevalence of cell phone use (CPU) of drivers and characteristics associated with its use in six cities across Texas, 2011-2013. METHODS: CPU and driver characteristics were observed among motor vehicles (n = 1280) stopped at major intersections in medical and academic campuses. A multivariable logistic regression model described the association between driver characteristics and CPU. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of any CPU was 18.7%. Any type of CPU and talking tended to decline, while texting seemed to increase from 2011 to 2013. CPU was more likely among female drivers (OR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.21, 2.20), drivers < 25 years of age (OR = 4.12; 95% CI = 2.29, 7.39), and drivers without passengers (OR = 4.40; 95% CI = 2.82, 6.88). CONCLUSION: Despite its dangers, CPU remains popular among Texas drivers. CPU and texting bans should target public health campaigns towards female and younger drivers.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional
Effect directionunclear
PopulationDrivers in six cities across Texas observed while stopped at major intersections in medical and academic campuses (2011–2013)
Sample size1280
Exposureobserved at intersections (2011–2013)
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Among 1280 observed vehicles, the overall prevalence of any cell phone use while driving was 18.7%. Any cell phone use and talking tended to decline from 2011 to 2013, while texting seemed to increase. Cell phone use was more likely among female drivers (OR=1.63), drivers <25 years (OR=4.12), and drivers without passengers (OR=4.40).

Outcomes measured

  • Prevalence of any cell phone use while driving
  • Trends in talking vs texting while driving (2011–2013)
  • Associations (odds ratios) between driver characteristics and cell phone use
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "observed at intersections (2011–2013)"
  },
  "population": "Drivers in six cities across Texas observed while stopped at major intersections in medical and academic campuses (2011–2013)",
  "sample_size": 1280,
  "outcomes": [
    "Prevalence of any cell phone use while driving",
    "Trends in talking vs texting while driving (2011–2013)",
    "Associations (odds ratios) between driver characteristics and cell phone use"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Among 1280 observed vehicles, the overall prevalence of any cell phone use while driving was 18.7%. Any cell phone use and talking tended to decline from 2011 to 2013, while texting seemed to increase. Cell phone use was more likely among female drivers (OR=1.63), drivers <25 years (OR=4.12), and drivers without passengers (OR=4.40).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "cell phone use",
    "driving",
    "texting",
    "talking",
    "prevalence",
    "Texas",
    "observational study",
    "logistic regression"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.02.010
PubMed: 26844064

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library