In Search of a Standard for Assessing the Crash Risk of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs Other Than Alcohol; Results of a Questionnaire Survey Among Researchers
In Search of a Standard for Assessing the Crash Risk of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs Other Than Alcohol; Results of a Questionnaire Survey Among Researchers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/15389588.2012.663118
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Brookhuis, Karel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Houwing, Sjoerd;Mathijssen, Rene;Brookhuis, Karel
目的：为了找到一个金标准的碰撞风险评估研究在驾驶领域的影响下的精神活性物质。方法：一份问卷调查的方法学方面的研究设计发送给研究人员在驾驶领域的影响下的精神活性物质。调查问卷的目的是在4个主要的研究设计，以评估碰撞风险的影响下驾驶：病例对照研究，罪责研究，药物流行病学研究，和实验studies.Results：问卷的响应率为68%（N = 57）。46%的受访者倾向于通过病例对照研究来评估撞车风险，35%的受访者倾向于通过实验研究来评估撞车风险，14%的受访者倾向于通过罪责研究来评估撞车风险，5%的受访者倾向于通过药物流行病学研究来评估撞车风险。然而，在实践中，只有51%的研究人员实际上使用了他们在理论上更喜欢的研究类型。对于4种最常用的研究设计，理论上首选设计的相似率为66%至81%，实际应用设计的相似率为52%至77%。根据问卷调查的结果，可以得出结论，尽管过去曾多次尝试使研究设计标准化，现时仍未有一套统一的标准，以评估酒后驾驶的撞车风险。这些差异不仅是由实际的、法律的、财务或伦理问题引起的，也是由研究者之间关于他们理论上偏好的研究设计的差异引起的。
Objective: To find a gold standard for crash risk assessment studies in the field of driving under the influence of psychoactive substances.Methods: A questionnaire survey on methodological aspects concerning study designs was sent to researchers in the field of driving under the influence of psychoactive substances. The questionnaire was aimed at the 4 main study designs to assess the crash risk of driving under the influence: case-control studies, culpability studies, pharmaco-epidemiological studies, and experimental studies.Results: The response rate for the questionnaire was 68 percent (N = 57). Forty-six percent of the respondents had a preference for assessing the crash risk by means of case-control studies, 35 percent by means of experimental studies, 14 percent by means of culpability studies, and 5 percent by means of pharmaco-epidemiological studies. In practice, however, only 51 percent of the researchers actually used the study type they preferred in theory. For the 4 most commonly used study designs, similarity rates varied from 66 to 81 percent for the theoretically preferred design and from 52 to 77 percent for the design that was actually applied.Conclusions: Based on the results of the questionnaire survey, it can be concluded that despite several attempts in the past to standardize study design, there is still no common standard for assessing the crash risk of driving under the influence. The differences are not only caused by practical, legal, financial, or ethical issues but also by differences between researchers concerning their theoretically preferred study design.