Communication, Drive, Feedback, Psychological, Recidivism
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to test the effects of an in-vehicle driving feedback technology, with and without parent communication training, on risky driving events, unsafe driving behaviors, and subsequent traffic violations among teens who have recently received a moving traffic violation.
Detailed description
For this study, 240 teen and parent/guardian dyads will be randomized into one of three study groups for six months. Teens will be aged 16-17 who committed a moving-related traffic violation and their parent/legal guardian who is most involved with their driving. Researchers will aim to determine the effects of the intervention on teens' risky driving events, unsafe driving behaviors, and traffic violation recidivism. Additionally, researchers will aim to determine the effects of the intervention on frequency and quality of parent-teen communications about safe driving practices.
Interventions
COMBINATION_PRODUCTIn-vehicle device
The Azūga™ in-vehicle driving feedback technology, which consists of a pager-sized device plugged into the vehicle's on-board diagnostic port (installed in the teen's car) and a smartphone app (downloaded on the teen's smartphone), will be installed/downloaded. Three types of feedback will be provided to intervention teens: 1) Direct audio feedback from the installed device; 2) Push notification on the phone screen when a trip ends, 3) Detailed cumulative driving data; and 4) A customized biweekly driving summary report.
BEHAVIORALParent Communication
An individualized virtual training in communication strategies about driving safety along with a booster session will be delivered by a traffic safety communication specialist to subjects in the Feedback and Parent Communication Group. Intervention parents in this group will also be provided with access to an online parent-teen safe driving communication guide, including includes three motivational interviewing technique demonstration videos and 26 safe driving lessons.
Sponsors
Ginger Yang
University of Iowa
Ohio State University
University of Nebraska
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
16 Years to 17 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Age 16-17 years at time of violation * Convicted of a moving violation * Possess a valid intermediate driver's license issued by the state of Ohio, with proof of car insurance * Access to a vehicle with an On-board Diagnostics II system port (i.e. cars made after 1996) in which he/she is the primary driver * Smartphone with Bluetooth capabilities * At least one legal guardian
Exclusion criteria
* Unable to drive due to injury, license suspension, or car damage * Vehicle already has an in-vehicle driving feedback system installed * Extremely low average weekly drive time (e.g. \<1 hour per week) * Currently enrolled in another driving-related study * War of the State * Non-English speaking parent * Adults unable to consent * Pregnant women * Prisoners
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Risky Driving Events | Six months/study period | Risky driving events are continuously monitored for teens (240) across all three groups using an in-vehicle device and smartphone app. The system automatically detects and records driving events, including hard braking (≤ -0.45 g-force) sudden acceleration (\> 0.35 g-force), speeding (\>10 miles over the posted speed limit), and speed \>75 mph. Event rates are calculated as the number of risky driving events per 1,000 miles driven. |
| Unsafe Behaviors | Six months/study period | Unsafe driving behaviors among teens (N = 240) are continuously monitored across all three study groups using an in-vehicle device and a smartphone app. The system automatically records behaviors such as speeding, and seatbelt nonuse (for selected vehicle makes and model years only), as well as the distance traveled while these behaviors occur. Unsafe behavior rates are calculated as the number of miles involving an unsafe behavior per 1,000 miles driven. Survey data supplement these measures by capturing self-reported distracted driving and seatbelt use for vehicles that are not fully compatible with the in-vehicle device. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Recidivism | Up to one year post-study period | Recidivism is assessed by linking traffic citation and court disposition records to participants' driver's license numbers. Data collected include violation dates, types, and intervals between the index and subsequent violations. |
| Parent-Teen Communication | at baseline, three months, and six months | Parent-teen communication is assessed using REDCap surveys. Teens and parents rate the frequency (0-3) and success (1-10) of discussions about 26 driving skills and safety principles from the past month. Frequency scores range from 0-78, with higher scores indicating more frequent communication, and quality scores are weighted averages expressed as percentages (1-100%), with higher scores indicating higher quality communication. Additionally, one voice-recorded conversation per survey is also coded by trained raters for active listening, OARS (i.e.,open questions, affirmations, reflective listening, and summary reflections) use solicitation of the teen's perspective, focus on behaviors, and emotional expression, with each behavior scored 0-3 to generate a summary quality score, with higher scores indicating higher quality communication. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORJingzhen (Ginger) Yang, PhD, MPH
Nationwide Children's Hospital
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Parent and teen are enrolled as a dyad only if both agree to participate.
Pre-assignment details
Data listed below reflects number of parent-teen dyads.
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | — |
|---|---|
| Age, Categorical Parents <=18 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Parents >=65 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Parents Between 18 and 65 years | 80 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Teens <=18 years | 240 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Teens >=65 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Teens Between 18 and 65 years | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parents Hispanic or Latino | 3 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parents Not Hispanic or Latino | 72 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parents Unknown or Not Reported | 6 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Teens Hispanic or Latino | 5 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Teens Not Hispanic or Latino | 206 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Teens Unknown or Not Reported | 4 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents Black | 7 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents Other | 15 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents White | 67 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Teens Black | 4 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Teens Other | 18 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Teens White | 192 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 480 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Parents Female | 180 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Parents Male | 18 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Teens Female | 41 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Teens Male | 117 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 80 | 0 / 80 | 0 / 80 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 3 / 80 | 3 / 80 | 3 / 80 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 80 | 0 / 80 | 0 / 80 |
Outcome results
None listed