Effectiveness of a Text Message Intervention Promoting Seat Belt Use Among Young Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Brian Suffoletto, Maria L Pacella-LaBarbara, James Huber, M Kit Delgado, Catherine McDonald, Brian Suffoletto, Maria L Pacella-LaBarbara, James Huber, M Kit Delgado, Catherine McDonald

Abstract

Importance: Approximately 1 in 10 adults do not always wear a seat belt, with the lowest use rates reported among young adults.

Objective: To determine the efficacy of a 6-week automated behavioral text message program promoting seat belt use compared with an attention control.

Design, setting, and participants: This parallel, 2-group, single-blind, individually randomized clinical trial included a convenience sample of patients recruited from 4 emergency departments in 2 cities in Pennsylvania from December 2019 to September 2021, with follow-ups at 6 and 12 weeks after randomization. Patients in stable condition aged 18 to 25 years who, in standardized screening, reported driving or being a passenger in a car without always using a seat belt in the past 2 weeks were eligible for recruitment. Participants who completed a 2-week trial run-in phase were randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention or the assessment control. Data were analyzed from October 2019 to January 2020.

Interventions: The intervention group received Safe Vehicle Engagement (SAVE), a 6-week automated interactive text message program, including weekly seat belt use queries with feedback and goal support to promote consistent use of a seat belt. The control group received identical weekly seat belt use queries but no additional feedback.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of young adults reporting always wearing a seat belt over the past 2 weeks, collected at 6 weeks (after a 2-week run-in) via web-based self-assessments and analyzed under intent-to-treat models using multiple imputation procedures. Sensitivity analyses included complete-case analyses of ordered categorical outcomes by vehicle seat position. Secondary outcomes included seatbelt use at 12 weeks and select cognitive constructs related to seat belt use.

Results: A total of 218 participants (mean [SD] age, 21.5 [2.1] years; 139 [63.8%] women) were randomized, with 110 randomized to SAVE and 108 randomized to the control group. A total of 158 individuals (72.4%) were included in the 6-week follow-up. The rate of always using a seat belt over the past 2 weeks at the 6-week follow-up was 41.3% (95% CI, 30.6%-52.0%) among SAVE participants and 20.0% (95% CI, 10.6%-29.3%) among control participants (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.8; P = .005). A total of 140 individuals (64.2%) participated in the 12-week follow-up. At 12 weeks, the rate of always using a seat belt over the past 2-weeks was 42.8% (95% CI, 31.2%-54.2%) among SAVE participants and 30.7% (95% CI, 19.6%-41.6%) among control participants (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.4; P = .13). When examining ordered categories of seat belt use by seat position, there were significantly greater odds of wearing a seat belt at 6 and 12 weeks among SAVE participants vs control participants (eg, 6 weeks for driver: OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.6-10.5; 6 weeks for front passenger: OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2; 6 weeks for back passenger: OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2).

Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, an interactive text message intervention was more effective at promoting seat belt use among targeted young adults than an attention control at 6 weeks. There was no significant difference between groups in always wearing a seat belt at 12 weeks. These findings, if replicated in a larger sample, suggest a scalable approach to improve seat belt use.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03833713.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Participant Recruitment Flowchart
Figure 1.. Participant Recruitment Flowchart
SAVE indicates Safe Vehicle Engagement.
Figure 2.. Change in Always Seat Belt…
Figure 2.. Change in Always Seat Belt Use Over Time by Treatment Condition
Error bars represent 95% CIs of estimates. SAVE indicates Safe Vehicle Engagement.

References

    1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2020. Crash Stats. May 2021. Accessed October 14, 2021.
    1. Fouda Mbarga N, Abubakari AR, Aminde LN, Morgan AR. Seatbelt use and risk of major injuries sustained by vehicle occupants during motor-vehicle crashes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1413. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6280-1
    1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Lives saved in 2017 by restraint use and minimum-drinking-age laws. Crash Stats. March 2019. Accessed November 1, 2021.
    1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Seat belt use in 2020—overall results. Crash Stats. February 2021. Accessed November 1, 2021.
    1. Enriquez J; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Occupant restraint use in 2019: results from the NOPUS controlled intersection study. Accessed November 1, 2021.
    1. Sommers MS, Lyons MS, Fargo JD, et al. . Emergency department-based brief intervention to reduce risky driving and hazardous/harmful drinking in young adults: a randomized controlled trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013;37(10):1753-1762. doi:10.1111/acer.12142
    1. Suffoletto B. Text message behavioral interventions: from here to where? Curr Opin Psychol. 2016;9:16-21. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.012
    1. Mason M, Ola B, Zaharakis N, Zhang J. Text messaging interventions for adolescent and young adult substance use: a meta-analysis. Prev Sci. 2015;16(2):181-188. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-0498-7
    1. Suffoletto B, Kristan J, Chung T, et al. . An interactive text message intervention to reduce binge drinking in young adults: a randomized controlled trial with 9-month outcomes. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142877. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142877
    1. Suffoletto B, Pacella-LaBarbara ML, Huber J, Delgado MK, McDonald C. Effectiveness of a text message intervention to reduce texting while driving among targeted young adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Adolesc Health. 2022;S1054-139X(22)00464-5. Published online June 18, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.05.016
    1. Ajzen I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
    1. Lazuras L, Rowe R, Poulter DR, Powell PA, Ypsilanti A. Impulsive and self-regulatory processes in risky driving among young people: a dual process model. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1170. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01170
    1. Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol. 2002;57(9):705-717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
    1. Fortuna RJ, Robbins BW, Mani N, Halterman JS. Dependence on emergency care among young adults in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(7):663-669. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1313-1
    1. Morrison LG. Theory-based strategies for enhancing the impact and usage of digital health behaviour change interventions: a review. Digit Health. 2015;1:2055207615595335. doi:10.1177/2055207615595335
    1. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221-233. doi:10.1037/h0057532
    1. Dai H, Milkman KL, Riis J. The fresh start effect: temporal landmarks motivate aspirational behavior. Manage Sci. 2014;60(10):2563-2582. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.1901
    1. Lerner EB, Jehle DVK, Billittier AJ IV, Moscati RM, Connery CM, Stiller G. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33(5):659-662. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00080-4
    1. Boyle JM, Sharp K. 1998 Motor vehicle occupant safety survey. NHTSA BSR Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey. March 3, 2000. Accessed January 6, 2022.
    1. Champion VL. Instrument development for health belief model constructs. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1984;6(3):73-85. doi:10.1097/00012272-198404000-00011
    1. Simons-Morton BG, Ouimet MC, Zhang Z, et al. . The effect of passengers and risk-taking friends on risky driving and crashes/near crashes among novice teenagers. J Adolesc Health. 2011;49(6):587-593. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.02.009
    1. Lee KJ, Carlin JB. Recovery of information from multiple imputation: a simulation study. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2012;9(1):3. doi:10.1186/1742-7622-9-3
    1. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377-399. doi:10.1002/sim.4067
    1. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C. Handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med. 2004;23(9):1455-1497. doi:10.1002/sim.1728
    1. Oosterveen E, Tzelepis F, Ashton L, Hutchesson MJ. A systematic review of eHealth behavioral interventions targeting smoking, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity and/or obesity for young adults. Prev Med. 2017;99:197-206. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.01.009
    1. Miles LM, Rodrigues AM, Sniehotta FF, French DP. Asking questions changes health-related behavior: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:59-68. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.014
    1. Bian Y, Yang C, Zhao JL, Liang L. Good drivers pay less: a study of usage-based vehicle insurance models. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2018;107:20-34. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.018
    1. Meyerowitz-Katz G, Ravi S, Arnolda L, Feng X, Maberly G, Astell-Burt T. Rates of attrition and dropout in app-based interventions for chronic disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med internet Res. 2020;22(9):e20283. doi:10.2196/20283
    1. Torous J, Lipschitz J, Ng M, Firth J. Dropout rates in clinical trials of smartphone apps for depressive symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;263:413-419. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.11.167
    1. Lally P, van Jaarsveld CHM, Potts HWW, Wardle J. How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2010;40(6):998-1009. doi:10.1002/ejsp.674

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel