Dataset Information

Seatbelt use among bus passengers in Ghana: observed versus self-reported measures.

ABSTRACT: Many road traffic injuries in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are to bus passengers. We sought to determine the availability, functionality, and observed vs. self-reported use of seatbelts in large intercity buses in Ghana. We observed seatbelt use for 1,184 passengers in 35 large intercity buses. We interviewed a separate group of 633 bus passengers. All buses observed had seatbelts and most (92.6%) were functional. A little over a fifth (21.6%) of passengers were observed to wear seatbelts. However, 34.5% of passengers in the self-reported survey indicated always wearing seatbelts when riding in buses. Passengers on 5 buses out of the 35 observed where the driver verbally prompted them to wear seatbelts were more likely (57.8%) to wear seatbelts than on the other buses (15.3%, p = 0.001). Comparing the self-reported survey with observations, passengers tended to overinflate seatbelt use by a factor of 1.6. This study provides useful information for efforts to increase and monitor seatbelt use among large intercity bus passengers in LMICs.Supplemental data for this article is available online at.

SUBMITTER: Okyere P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9444902 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Seatbelt use among bus passengers in Ghana: observed versus self-reported measures.

Okyere Paul P Agyei-Baffour P P Harris M J MJ Mock C C Yankson I K IK Donkor P P Owusu-Dabo E E

International journal of injury control and safety promotion 20220407 3

Many road traffic injuries in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are to bus passengers. We sought to determine the availability, functionality, and observed vs. self-reported use of seatbelts in large intercity buses in Ghana. We observed seatbelt use for 1,184 passengers in 35 large intercity buses. We interviewed a separate group of 633 bus passengers. All buses observed had seatbelts and most (92.6%) were functional. A little over a fifth (21.6%) of passengers were observed to wear seat ...[more]

PMID: 35389822

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth literacy (HL) and numeracy are measured by one of two methods: performance on objective tests or self-report of one's skills. Whether results from these methods differ in their relationship to health outcomes or use of health services is unknown.MethodsWe performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate articles that measured both performance-based and self-reported HL or numeracy and examined their relationship to health outcomes or health service use. To identify studies, we started with an AHRQ-funded systematic review of HL and health outcomes. We then looked for newer studies by searching MEDLINE from 1 February 2010 to 9 December 2014. We included English language studies meeting pre-specified criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and studies for inclusion and graded study quality. One reviewer abstracted information from included studies while a second checked content for accuracy.ResultsWe identified four "fair" quality studies that met inclusion criteria for our review. Two studies measuring HL found no differences between performance-based and self-reported HL for association with self-reported outcomes (including diabetes, stroke, hypertension) or a physician-completed rheumatoid arthritis disease activity score. However, HL measures were differentially related to a patient-completed health assessment questionnaire and to a patient's ability to interpret their prescription medication name and dose from a medication bottle. Only one study measured numeracy and found no difference between performance-based and self-reported measures of numeracy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization. However, in a moderator analysis from the same study, performance-based and self-reported numeracy were differentially related to CRC screening utilization when stratified by certain patient-provider communication behaviors (e.g., the chance to always ask questions and get the support that is needed).DiscussionMost studies found no difference in the relationship between results of performance-based and self-reported measures and outcomes. However, we identified few studies using multiple instruments and/or objective outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical function constitutes a key component of outcome assessment for almost all osteoarthritis interventions. The aim was to compare physical function measured using a self-assessed performance-based test versus self-reported function using questionnaires among individuals with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) participating in a digital exercise and education therapy.MethodsWe analysed data from individuals aged 40 + years participating in the digital program. We extracted data on the self-assessed 30-second chair stand test (30s CST) and the function subscales of Knee injury/Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 12 (KOOS-12/HOOS-12) at enrolment and 3- (n = 10884) and 12-month (n = 3554) follow-ups. Participants completed Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain, EQ-5D-5L, and an external anchor: global rating of change scale. Correlations were assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient, responsiveness using standardized response mean (SRM) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and agreement using weighted percent of agreement and weighted Gwet's agreement coefficient.ResultsCorrelations were weak between the 30s CST and KOOS-12/HOOS-12 function (r < 0.35 for raw and r < 0.20 for change scores). Correlations with NRS pain and EQ-5D-5L were stronger for the KOOS-12/HOOS-12 function subscale than for 30s CST. Greater internal (SRM > 1 vs. SRM < 0.5) and lower external responsiveness were observed for the 30s CST versus the KOOS-12/HOOS-12 function, even though external responsiveness was generally inadequate for both (the area under the ROC curves < 0.7). The direction of change was similar for the two function measures for about 70% of subjects with moderate agreement between them (weighted Gwet's agreement coefficient range 0.45 to 0.50).ConclusionWeak correlations and moderate agreements between function measured using performance-based test and self-reported using KOOS-12/HOOS-12 in people with knee or hip OA suggest that they may capture different aspects of functional abilities in this population.

Project description:BACKGROUND: There is a recognised need to build primary care medication adherence services which are tailored to patients' needs. Continuous quality improvement of such services requires a regular working method of measuring adherence in order to monitor effectiveness. Self report has been considered the method of choice for clinical use; it is cheap, relatively unobtrusive and able to distinguish between intentional and unintentional non-adherence, which have different underlying causes and therefore require different interventions. A self report adherence measure used in routine clinical practice would ideally be brief, acceptable to patients, valid, reliable, have the ability to distinguish between different types of non-adherence and be able to be completed by or in conjunction with carers where necessary. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature in order to identify self report adherence measures currently available which are suitable for primary care and evaluate the extent to which they met the criteria described above. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Pharmline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and HaPI to identify studies reporting the development, validation or reliability of generic adherence measures. One reviewer screened all abstracts and assessed all relevant full text articles obtained and a second reviewer screened/assessed 10% to check reliability. RESULTS: Fifty eight measures were identified. While validation data were presented in support of the vast majority of self reported measures (54/58), data for a relatively small number of measures was presented for reliability (16/58) and time to complete (3/58). Few were designed to have the ability to be completed by or in conjunction with carers and few were able to distinguish between different types of non-adherence, which limited their ability be used effectively in the continuous improvement of targeted adherence enhancing interventions. The data available suggested that patients find it easier to estimate general adherence than to report a specific number of doses missed. Visual analogue scales can be easier for patients than other types of scale but are not suitable for telephone administration. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a measure which can be used in the routine continual quality monitoring of adherence services.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-reported substance use is more likely to be influenced by underreporting bias compared to the biological markers. Underreporting bias or validity of self-reported substance use depends on the study population and cannot be generalized to the entire population. This study aimed to compare the validity of self-reported substance use between research setting and primary health care setting from the same source population.Methods and materialsThe population in this study included from Rafsanjan Youth Cohort Study (RYCS) and from primary care health centers. The sample from RYCS is made up 607 participants, 113 (18.62%) women and 494 (81.38%) men and sample from PHC centers is made up 522 individuals including 252 (48.28%) women and 270 (51.72%) men. We compared two groups in respect of prevalence estimates based on self-reported substance use and urine test. Then for evaluating validity of self-reported substance use in both group, the results of reference standard, urine tests, were compared with the results of self-reported drug use using measures of concordance.ResultsThe prevalence of substance use based on urine test was significantly higher in both settings compared to self-reported substance use over the past 72 h. The sensitivity of self-report substance use over the past 72 h in research setting was 39.4, 20, 10% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively and in primary health care setting was 50, 20.7, 12.5% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively. The level of agreement between self-reported substance use over the past 72 h and urine test indicated fair and moderate agreement for opium in both research and primary health care settings, respectively and also slight agreement for methadone and cannabis in both settings were reported. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of self-reported substance use. For all substances, the level of agreement increased with longer recall periods. The specificity of self-report for all substances in both groups was more than 99%.ConclusionIndividuals in primary health care setting were more likely to self-reported substance use than in research setting, but setting did not have a statistically significant effect in terms of self-reported substance use. Programs that rely on self-reported substance use may not estimate the exact prevalence of substance use in both research and primary health care settings, especially for substances that have a higher social stigma. Therefore, it is recommended that self-report and biological indicators be used for more accurate evaluation in substance use studies. It is also suggested that future epidemiological studies be performed to reduce bias of social desirability and find a method providing the highest level of privacy.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral case-control studies have shown associations between the risk of different cancers and self-reported opium use. Inquiring into relatively sensitive issues, such as the history of drug use, is usually prone to information bias. However, in order to justify the findings of these types of studies, we have to quantify the level of such a negative bias. In current study, we aimed to evaluate sensitivity of self-reported opioid use and suggest suitable types of control groups for case-control studies on opioid use and the risk of cancer.MethodsIn order to compare the validity of the self-reported opioid use, we cross-validated the response of two groups of subjects 1) 178 hospitalized patients and 2) 186 healthy individuals with the results of their tests using urine rapid drug screen (URDS) and thin layer chromatography (TLC). The questioners were asked by trained interviewers to maximize the validity of responses; healthy individuals were selected from the companions of patients in hospitals.ResultsSelf-reported regular opioid use was 36.5% in hospitalized patients 19.3% in healthy individuals (p-value> 0.001).The reported frequencies of opioid use in the past 72 hours were 21.4% and 11.8% in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals respectively. Comparing their responses with the results of urine tests showed a sensitivity of 77% and 69% among hospitalized patients and healthy individuals for self-reports (p-value = 0.4). Having corrected based on the mentioned sensitivities; the frequency of opioid regular use was 47% and 28% in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals, respectively. Regular opioid use among hospitalized patients was significantly higher than in healthy individuals (p-value> 0.001).ConclusionOur findings showed that the level of opioid use under-reporting in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals was considerable but comparable. In addition, the frequency of regular opioid use among hospitalized patients was significantly higher than that in the general population. Altogether, it seems that, without corrections for these differences and biases, the results of many studies including case-control studies on opioid use might distort findings substantially.

Dataset Information

Seatbelt use among bus passengers in Ghana: observed versus self-reported measures.

Publications

Seatbelt use among bus passengers in Ghana: observed versus self-reported measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets