Article Text

PDF
Safe Drive Stay Alive: exploring effectiveness of a real-world driving intervention for predrivers and the utility of the health action process approach
  1. H Dale1,2,
  2. C Scott3,
  3. G Ozakinci2
  1. 1NHS Fife Department of Psychology, Lynebank Hospital, Dunfermline, UK
  2. 2School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, North Hague, St Andrews, UK
  3. 3Aberdeen Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
  1. Correspondence to H Dale, NHS Fife Department of Psychology, Lynebank Hospital, Halbeath Road, Dunfermline KY11 4UW, UK; hannahdale{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Young drivers are greatly over-represented 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 predrivers) 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 (eg, 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 used 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.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Twitter Follow Gozde Ozakinci at @gozde786

  • Contributors HD led on the development, conduction and write up of the research. CS and GO contributed to the study design. CS led on the analysis. HD and GO assisted with analysis. HD, CS and GO all contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Fife Community Safety Partnership Group.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval University of St Andrews.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.