Traffic-related injury prevention interventions for low-income countries.
Traffic-related injury prevention interventions for low-income countries.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1076/icsp.10.1.109.14115
复制
发表时间：
2003-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Forjuoh, Samuel N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Forjuoh, Samuel N
与创伤有关的伤害已成为全世界主要的公共卫生问题。然而，与发达国家或高收入国家不同，许多发展中国家或低收入国家在解决这一问题方面进展甚微。低收入国家缺乏进展的部分原因是其经济状况，即政府缺乏资源投资于交通安全，文化上认为受伤是宿命论，健康问题相互竞争，特别是艾滋病毒/艾滋病的出现，独特的交通混合，其中有大量易受伤害的道路使用者，对他们的研究较少，识字率低，使驾车者无法阅读和理解路标，以及有时由独裁和非民主政府主导的特殊政治局势。那么，低收入国家如何借鉴高收入国家的经验，在不重新发明轮子的情况下应对交通安全挑战？本文回顾了选定的干预措施和战略，已制定的打击交通相关伤害的高收入国家的有效性和适用性，低收入国家。安全带和头盔的使用、安全带使用的立法和执法、人行道、道路障碍、选定的交通平静设计（例如，许多低收入国家的数据表明，在低收入国家，所有这些措施都是可行和有用的。虽然主要在高收入国家制定的许多交通伤害政策干预措施和战略有可能转移到低收入国家，但必须考虑到成本、可行性、可持续性和障碍等具体国家因素，所有这些因素都必须纳入对低收入国家具体环境的有效性评估。几乎所有在高收入国家证明有效的干预措施和战略都需要在低收入国家进行评估，并特别注意执行措施的有效性。然而，低收入国家政府有责任确保只有标准的、经批准的安全设备，如头盔，才能进口到他们的国家。此外，低收入国家可能需要在交通安全技术转让方面进行即兴发挥和创新。
Traffic-related injuries have become a major public health concern worldwide. However, unlike developed or high-income countries (HICs), many developing or low-income countries (LICs) have made very little progress towards addressing this problem. Lack of the progress in LICs is attributable, in part, to their economic situation in terms of their governments' lack of resources to invest in traffic safety, cultural beliefs regarding the fatalism of injuries, competing health problems particularly with the emergence of HIV/AIDS, distinctive traffic mixes comprising a substantial number of vulnerable road users for whom less research has been done, low literacy rates precluding motorists to read and understand road signs, and peculiar political situations occasionally predominated by dictatorship and non-democratic governments. How then can LICs tackle the challenge of traffic safety from the experiences of HICs without reinventing the wheel? This paper reviews selected interventions and strategies that have been developed to counter traffic-related injuries in HICs in terms of their effectiveness and their applicability to LICs. Proven and promising interventions or strategies such as seat belt and helmet use, legislation and enforcement of seat belt use, sidewalks, roadway barriers, selected traffic-calming designs (e.g., speed ramps/bumps), pedestrian crossing signs combined with clearly marked crosswalks, and public education and behavior modification targeted at motorists are all feasible and useable in LICs as evidenced by data from many LICs. While numerous traffic-related injury policy interventions and strategies developed largely in HICs are potentially transferable to LICs, it is important to consider country-specific factors such as costs, feasibility, sustainability, and barriers, all of which must be factored into the assessment of effectiveness in specific LIC settings. Almost all interventions and strategies that have been proven effective in HICs will need to be evaluated in LICs and particular attention paid to the effectiveness of enforcement measures. It behooves LIC governments, however, to ensure that only standard, approved safety devices like helmets are imported into their countries. Additionally, LICs may need to improvise and innovate in the traffic safety technology transfer.