Effectiveness Review
Analytic Framework 
[PDF - 2.85 MB] – see Figure 1 on page 49
When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.
The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).
Effectiveness Review
Dussault C. Effectiveness of a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program combined with incentives for seat belt use in Quebec. Health Educ Res 1990;5:217–23.
Hagenzieker MP. Enforcement or incentives? Promoting safety belt use among military personnel in the Netherlands. J Appl Behav Anal 1991; 24:23–30.
Jonah BA, Dawson NE, Smith GA. Effects of a selective traffic enforcement program on seat belt usage. J Appl Psychol 1982;67:89–96.
Jonah BA, Grant BA. Long-term effectiveness of selective traffic enforcement programs for increasing seat belt use. J Appl Psychol 1985;70:257–63.
Lund AK, Stuster J, Fleming A. Special publicity and enforcement of California’s belt use law: making a “secondary” law work. J Criminal Justice 1989;17:329–41.
Malenfant JE, Van Houten R. The effects of nighttime seat belt enforcement on seat belt use by tavern patrons: a preliminary analysis. J Appl Behav Anal 1988;21:271–6.
Mortimer RG, Goldsteen K, Armstrong RW, Macrina D. Effects of incentives and enforcement on the use of seat belts by drivers. J Safety Res 1990;21:25–37.
Roberts DS, Geller ES. A statewide intervention to increase safety belt use: adding to the impact of a belt use law. Am J Health Promot 1994;8:172–4.
Rood DH, Kraichy PP, Carman JA. Selective Traffic Enforcement Program for occupant restraints. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1987. DOT HS 807 120.
Solomon MG, Nissen WJ, Preusser DF. Occupant protection Special Traffic Enforcement Program evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999. DOT HS 808 884.
Streff FM, Molnar LJ, Christoff C. Increasing safety belt use in a secondary enforcement state: evaluation of a three-county special enforcement program. Accid Anal Prev 1992;24:369–83.
Watson REL. The effectiveness of increased police enforcement as a general deterrent. Law Society Rev 1986;20:293–9.
Williams AF, Hall WL, Tolbert WG, Wells JK. Development and evaluation of pilot programs to increase seat belt use in North Carolina. J Safety Res 1994;25:167–75.
Williams AF, Lund AK, Preusser DF, Blomberg RD. Results of a seat belt use law enforcement and publicity campaign in Elmira, New York. Accid Anal Prev 1987;19:243–9.
Williams AF, Reinfurt D, Wells JK. Increasing seat belt use in North Carolina. J Safety Res 1996;27:33–41.
The following outlines the search strategy used for reviews of these interventions to increase use of safety belts: Laws Mandating Use; Primary (vs. Secondary) Enforcement Laws; Enhanced Enforcement Programs.
The reviews of interventions to reduce motor vehicle-related injury reflect systematic searches of multiple databases as well as reviews of reference lists and consultations with experts in the field. The team searched six computerized databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Psychlit, Sociological Abstracts, EI Compendex, and Transportation Research Information Services [TRIS]), which yielded 10,958 titles and abstracts for articles, book chapters, reports, and published papers from the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine proceedings about safety belts, alcohol-impaired driving or child passenger safety. Studies were eligible for inclusion if:
- They were published from the originating date of the database through June 2000 (March 1998 for child safety seat interventions)
- They involved primary studies, not guidelines or reviews
- They were published in English
- They were relevant to the interventions selected for review
- The evaluation included a comparison to an unexposed or less-exposed population
- The evaluation measured outcomes defined by the analytic framework for the intervention
Search Strategy for Use of Safety Belts:
(MOTOR(W)VEHICLE?) OR AUTOMOBILE? OR CAR OR CARS OR TRUCK? OR (TRAFFIC(2N)(ACCIDENT? OR CRASH? OR DEATH? OR FATALIT? OR INJUR?))
AND
(SEAT(W)BELT?) OR SEATBELT? OR (SAFETY(W)RESTRAINT?) OR (SAFETY(W)BELT?) OR (OCCUPANT(W)RESTRAINT?) OR OCCUPANT(W)PROTECTION)
AND
INTERVENTION? OR OUTREACH? OR PREVENTION OR (COMMUNITY(3N)(RELATION? OR PROGRAM? OR ACTION)) OR DETERRENT? OR PROGRAM? OR LEGISLATION? OR LAW? OR EDUCATION OR DETERRENCE OR COUNSELING OR CLASS OR CLASSES OR TRAINING OR PROMOTION? OR BEHAVIOR?
NOT
PEDESTRIAN? OR MOTORCYCLE OR BICYCL? OR CYCLIST? OR (SCHOOL(W)BUS?) OR BUS OR BUSES OR AIRPLANE? OR AIR(W)TRANSPORTATION?) OR AVIATION? OR (AIR(W)TRAFFIC) OR (AIR(W)CRAFT) OR DIAGNOSIS OR THERAPY OR GUIDELINE OR COMMENT? OR HISTORY OR EDITORIAL