Banstola Amrit, Mytton Julie
a Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences , The University of the West of England , Bristol , UK.
b Department of Research and Training , Public Health Perspective Nepal , Pokhara , Nepal.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2017 May 19;18(4):357-362. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2016.1212165. Epub 2016 Aug 30.
The objective of this study was to identify, critically appraise, summarize, and synthesize evidence from cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of interventions aimed at preventing road traffic injuries (RTIs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by age group and road users targeted.
A search strategy was applied to 12 electronic databases for studies published between May 2002 and August 2015 that met prespecified inclusion criteria. Additional studies were identified by contacting authors and searching bibliographies. Included studies were critically appraised against published criteria and a narrative synthesis was conducted including a use of the strength of evidence criteria.
Five studies were included in the final review that reported 9 interventions. Only 2 out of 9 interventions (drink-drive legislation with enforcement via breath testing campaign and combined interventions for reducing RTIs) showed moderate evidence of being cost-effective, whereas the evidence of cost-effectiveness of other interventions was weak. Only 2 interventions (bicycle and motorcycle helmet use legislation and enforcement) were explicitly targeted to children, young people and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. The cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent RTIs in LMICs ranged from US$4.14 per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted for building speed bumps at the most dangerous junctions that caused 10% of junction deaths in the area studied to US$3,403 per DALYs averted for legislation and enforcement of helmet use by motorcyclists in the World Health Organization (WHO) sub-Saharan Africa region.
Evidence of cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent RTIs in LMICs is limited, particularly for children, young people, and vulnerable road users. Evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a larger number of possible road safety interventions in a variety of LMIC settings is warranted to generate the evidence base for effective traffic injury prevention programs.
本研究的目的是识别、严格评估、总结并综合来自成本效益分析(CEA)的证据,这些分析针对低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)中按年龄组和目标道路使用者划分的旨在预防道路交通伤害(RTIs)的干预措施。
对12个电子数据库应用检索策略,以查找2002年5月至2015年8月间发表的符合预先设定纳入标准的研究。通过联系作者和检索参考文献确定了其他研究。根据已发表的标准对纳入研究进行严格评估,并进行叙述性综合,包括使用证据强度标准。
最终综述纳入了5项研究,报告了9种干预措施。9种干预措施中只有2种(通过呼气测试活动进行执法的酒后驾驶立法以及减少道路交通伤害的综合干预措施)显示出中等程度的成本效益证据,而其他干预措施的成本效益证据较弱。只有2种干预措施(自行车和摩托车头盔使用立法及执法)明确针对儿童、年轻人以及行人与骑自行车者等易受伤害的道路使用者。在低收入和中等收入国家预防道路交通伤害的干预措施的成本效益范围从在所研究地区导致10%路口死亡的最危险路口设置减速带,每避免一个伤残调整生命年(DALY)花费4.14美元,到世界卫生组织(WHO)撒哈拉以南非洲地区针对骑摩托车者的头盔使用立法及执法,每避免一个DALY花费3403美元。
在低收入和中等收入国家预防道路交通伤害的干预措施的成本效益证据有限,特别是针对儿童、年轻人和易受伤害的道路使用者。有必要在各种低收入和中等收入国家环境中对大量可能的道路安全干预措施的有效性和成本效益进行评估,以生成有效交通伤害预防计划的证据基础。