Distracted Driving Among Patients with Trauma Attending Fracture Clinics in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, every 25 seconds, a person dies in a motor vehicle crash (MVC) and 58 people get injured. Adding to the rising distracted-driving rates is the rapid growth of the number of cars in circulation globally. This study examined the proportion of distracted drivers among patients attending orthopaedic fracture clinics, as well as associated factors. METHODS: In this large, multicenter, cross-sectional study, we recruited 1,378 patients across 4 Canadian fracture clinics. Eligible patients completed an anonymous questionnaire about distracted driving. We calculated the percentages of specific distractions. Using questionnaire responses and published crash risk odds ratios (ORs), patients were grouped as distraction-prone and distraction-averse. Regression analyses to determine the association of demographic characteristics with distracting behaviors and the odds of being in a distraction-related crash were performed. RESULTS: In total, 1,358 patients (99.7%) self-reported distracted driving. Prevalent distractions included talking to passengers (98.7%), distractions outside the vehicle (95.5%), listening to the radio (97.6%), adjusting the radio (93.8%), and daydreaming (61.2%). Of the 1,354 patients who acknowledged mobile phone distractions, 889 (65.7%) accepted phone calls and continued driving, 675 (49.8%) read electronic messages, and 475 (35.1%) sent electronic messages. Younger age (OR, 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 0.97]; p < 0.001) and household incomes of $80,000 to <$100,000 (OR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.17 to 3.14]; p = 0.01) and ≥$100,000 (OR, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.57 to 3.91]; p < 0.001) were associated with being in the distraction-prone group. Distraction-prone patients were twice as likely to be in a distraction-related MVC (OR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.74]; p < 0.001). Of 113 drivers who sustained injuries from MVCs, 20 (17.7%) acknowledged being distracted. Of 729 patients who reported being the driver in a previous MVC in their lifetime, 226 (31.0%) confirmed being distracted. CONCLUSIONS: This survey-based study showed that driving distractions were near universally acknowledged. The pervasiveness of distractions held true even when only the more dangerous distractions were considered. One in 6 patients in MVCs reported being distracted in their current crash, and 1 in 3 patients disclosed being distracted in an MVC during their lifetime.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".