Driver Monitoring and Feedback Systems for Young Drivers: Evidence from a Systematic Review, and �Findings from a Qualitative Interview Study
Johnathon Ehsani, Associate Professor, Health Policy and Management
Acknowledgements
Part of this study was supported by a grant from the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant number 1R49CE003090).
2
Introduction- Young Drivers in the U.S.
Disproportionate share of crash risk among U.S. drivers.
3
3
A promising solution?
Driver Monitoring and Feedback
Real–time driver behavior monitoring via
Driving behaviors: distraction monitoring, speed compliance, harsh maneuver detection.
4
4
Research Questions
5
Study 1: Systematic Review
6
Methods: Systematic Literature Review Inclusion Criteria
Search Criteria:
7
Methods: Systematic Literature Review Search Terms
8
PRISMA Diagram – Identification, screening, assessment, and inclusion
9
Results: Systematic Literature Review - Studies on Young Drivers
- 12 Randomized Control Trial (RCTs)
- 7 Quasi-experimental designs
10
Results – RCT Evidence for Young Drivers
Study Outcomes:
Feedback to young drivers only (no parent engagement)
Real- time alerts + Post Drive Feedback + Parental Engagement
11
Table of 12 RCTs
Author, year | Feedback Type | N | Key Findings |
Molloy, Molesworth, Williamson, 2021 | Post Drive Feedback | 60 | Verbal and graphical feedback yielded the greatest in ↓ speeding behavior; graphical having the most impact in the two speed zones. |
Meuleners et al., 2023 | Post Drive Feedback | 72 | No statistical difference in outcomes though changes in the right direction. |
Molloy, Molesworth, Williamson, Senserrick, 2023 | Post Drive Feedback | 70 | Feedback provided only on one or two occasions was the most effective in ↓ average speed and % of time speeding for lower and higher speed zones. |
New South Wales State Insurance Regulatory Authority, 2019 | Immediate + Post Drive Feedback | 717 | ↓ frequency and severity of speeding, harsh braking, rapid acceleration & harsh cornering. Sustained over study period; Results varied by driver type, behavior, environment. |
Molloy, Molesworth, Williamson, 2019 | Immediate + Post Drive Feedback | 75 | Post drive verbal feedback with financial/road safety implications explained was the most effective in ↓ average speed and % of time speeding in the low speed (50 km/h) and high speed (80 km/h) zones. |
Farmer, Kirley & McCartt, 2010 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 84 | ↓ speeding only when teens received alerts, believed their behavior would not be reported to parents if corrected, and when parents were being notified of such behavior by report cards; ↑ seat belt use when violations were reported to parents & greater ↑ with in-vehicle alerts. |
12
Table of 12 RCTs continued
Author, year | Feedback Type | N | Key Findings |
Simons-Morton et al., 2013 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 90 | ↓ g-force event rates when immediate feedback combined with weekly reports to teen & parents; No impact when feedback only provided to teen. |
McGehee, Reyes & Carney, 2013 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 90
| ↓ safety events; sustained for 16 yr olds, but younger drivers started to ↑ unsafe events when treatment stopped |
Farah et al., 2014
| Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 217 | ↓ risky driving event rates amongst teens whose parents received vigilant training in combo with parental reports & immediate in-vehicle alerts; other treatment groups did not have statistically significant improvements over control group. |
Reyes et al., 2016 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 60 | Teens in treatment groups had 6 times less unsafe events to control group; form of feedback to parents did not make a difference. |
Peek-Asa et al., 2019 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 161 | Dyads who received feedback + parent training had nearly 80% lower rate of driving events and dyads who received only feedback had a 65% lower rate of driving events compared to controls; Dyads who received both interventions had nearly 40% ↓ driving event rate than feedback-only group. |
Peer, Muermann, Sallinger, 2020 | Monitoring + Incentives | 130 | Those who were safer drivers in baseline referred to feedback more & those who referred to feedback more had a higher level of safe driving improvements; Monetary incentives improved safety more than feedback alone, which saw moderate improvement. |
13
Results – Quasi- Experimental Evidence for Young Drivers
Study Outcomes:
Parental Engagement
Post Drive Feedback + Incentives for Distraction-Free Driving
14
Table of 7 QEs
Author, year | Feedback Type | N | Key Findings |
McGehee, Raby & Carney, 2007 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 26 | ↓ safety events & ↑seatbelt use; biggest change was for the 9 riskiest drivers. |
Prato et al., 2010 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 62 | Risk indices ↓ when parents monitor driving behavior, but slightly ↑, when young drivers enter the website to check their own driving records. |
Carney et al., 2010 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 36 | ↓ safety events |
Creaser et al., 2015 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 598 | Speed compliance ↑ for both treatment groups, but the group with parental monitoring had the most improvement. Parental monitoring was critical for ↓ harsh driving maneuvers. |
Klauer et al, 2016 | Monitoring + Feedback & Coaching or Supervision | 92 | ↓ in driver errors for those teens whose parents monitored the coaching site, but slight ↑ in error rates when treatments removed; Error rates remained flat for those teens whose parents did not monitor the reports, ↑ significantly when treatment removed. |
Markham, Porter & Ball, 2011 | Monitoring + Incentives | 6 | Case study analysis: Each of the 4 participants in the treatment phase↓ speeding in treatment phase from own baseline, even those who habitually speed; between participant study: program successful in ↓speeding behavior of participants as a group. |
Henk, Munira, Tisdale 2021 | Monitoring + Incentives | 138 | Statistically significant ↓ in distracted driving when incentives awarded for distraction-free driving. 2018 study: found significant ↓, but in taking a closer look demographics, the influence of incentives was strongest among females and those over the age of 18. |
15
Results – Behavioral Theory integration for Young Drivers
Young Driver Intervention Type | N Studies | No Behavioral Theory | Substantial Theory Integration |
Immediate in-vehicle feedback (A) | 0 | 0 | - |
Post-drive feedback (B) | 3 | 3 | 0 |
Combine Immediate + Post Drive Feedback (C) | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Feedback + Coaching / Supervision (D) | 11 | 11 | 0 |
Feedback + Employer Coaching / Supervision (E) | 0 | 0 | - |
Feedback + Incentives (F) | 3 | 3 | 0 |
TOTAL | 19 | 19 | 0 |
16
Study 2: Qualitative Interviews
17
Recruitment and Data Collection
18
Results
19
Main Themes Identified
20
Parent-Teen Relationship
“I think for right now we've decided not to [use a monitoring system] because they've been very responsible with the cars, so I think that's kind of why we haven't...so if they started to abuse the privilege or we noticed something going on, I think that we would probably look more into that.” –Parent, non-user
“Well there would be some warnings like with my eldest daughter we had a few warnings. And then of course, if those warnings were ignored, we’d remind her this car is not yours. At any time this car can be taken away from you…if you don't want to go by the rules.” –Parent, user
21
Parent-Teen Relationship
“I’m not like a sneaky teenager or anything. I'm very open with my parents, and there’s nowhere I ever go that I…need to hide…from them, because I’m mainly just at school or work, or a friend's house. But I always tell them where I am, and they'll always know where I am, because of the app.” –Teen, user
“One time I did wind up having to slam on the brakes, and she called me shortly after and I pulled over, and I was like ‘Yeah everything's fine.’ I was happy that she knew that something had happened, so she could check on me and make sure.” –Teen, user
22
Driver Monitoring as a Teaching Tool
“Better to monitor them that way we could actually see how they're actually driving, and if they're not driving the way they’re supposed to, we can actually try and address that with them, so I think that would be a very efficient program for all teens.” –Parent, user
“I think it's smart just because new drivers need to be extra cautious and safe on the road. Especially on highways and interstates you know, and I feel that, having something recorded as well that…would tell me…at that certain time what I did…wrong or what I could improve on, I think that would be helpful.” -Teen, non-user
23
Trust in the Score
“One thing I would like to know that I don't know is how the occurrence of any…events …truly impacts the rate. I see kind of like a final score, but I don't know how…it’s calculated from those events. I know that the total distance driven factors into it…but I don’t know more than that.” –Parent, user
24
Financial Implications of Use
25
Privacy Concerns
“I think I have the GPS only when I'm using the app and since I never bring up the app…the app never knows where I am and it keeps bugging me all the time like, ‘Hey you need to enable this permission’ and I'm like, ‘Nope I'm not going to enable 24/7 tracking for you.’” –Teen, user
“Phones collect so much information about us…you don't know if they're going to delete it in a couple months or ever at all, or just like is [it] going to be in a server waiting for it to be hacked.” –Parent, non-user
26
Synthesis: What Works for Young Drivers?
27
Discussion – Critical Questions Moving Forward
28
Please get in touch:
Dr. Johnathon Ehsani�Johnathon.ehsani@jhu.edu
29