MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Graduated driver licensing for reducing motor vehicle crashes among young drivers

2004· review· en· W1938718597 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Hartling, Natasha Wiebe, Kelly Russell, Jackie Petruk, Carla Spinola, Terry P. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityStollery Children's HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLCrashMedicinePoison controlInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthMEDLINEHuman factors and ergonomicsPopulationSuicide preventionIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionEnvironmental healthComputer scienceNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Graduated driver licensing (GDL) has been proposed as a means of reducing crash rates among novice drivers by gradually introducing them to higher risk driving situations. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of GDL systems in reducing crash rates of young drivers. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Healthstar, Web of Science, NTIS Bibliographic Database, TRIS Online, SIGLE, the World Wide Web, relevant conference proceedings, consultation with experts and authors, and reference lists. The search was not restricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if: 1) they compared outcomes pre- and post-implementation of a GDL program within the same jurisdiction, 2) comparisons were made between jurisdictions with and without GDL, or 3) both. Studies had to report at least one objective, quantified outcome. Two reviewers independently screened searches and assessed the full text of potentially relevant studies for inclusion using a standard form. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Additional data were requested from authors. Results were not pooled due to substantial heterogeneity between studies. Percentage change was calculated for each year after the intervention, using one year prior to the intervention as the baseline rate. Results were adjusted by internal controls. Analyses were stratified by different denominators (population, licensed drivers). Results were calculated for the different crash types (overall, injury, fatal, night-time, alcohol, and those resulting in hospitalization). Results were presented for 16 year-olds alone and all teenage drivers combined. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies evaluating 12 GDL programs that were implemented between 1979 and 1998 in the US (n=7), Canada (3), New Zealand (1), and Australia (1). Programs varied in their restrictions during the intermediate stage: e.g. night curfews (8); limitations of extra passengers (2); roadway restrictions (1). Based on the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety classification scheme, no programs were good, six were acceptable, five were marginal, and one was poor. Reductions in crash rates were seen in all jurisdictions and for all crash types. Among 16 year-old drivers, the median decrease in per population overall crash rates during the first year was 31% (range 26-41%). Per population injury crash rates were similar (median 28%, range 4-43%). Results for all teenage drivers, rates per licensed driver, and rates adjusting for internal controls were generally reduced when comparing within jurisdictions. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence shows that GDL is effective in reducing the crash rates of young drivers, although the magnitude of the effect is unclear. The conclusions are supported by consistent direction of the findings, and the temporal relationship and plausibility of the association. The reviewers have made recommendations for primary research on GDL (e.g. study methods, standardized reporting of outcomes and results, long-term follow-up). The project has also shown what is needed to carry out systematic reviews of observational studies (e.g. quality assessment instruments).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations156
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207