Hidalgo-Solórzano E, Campuzano-Rincón J, Rodríguez-Hernández JM, Chias-Becerril L, Reséndiz-López H, Sánchez-Restrepo H, Baranda-Sepúlveda B, Franco-Arias C, Híjar M

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 502-510
PDF size: 143.17 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To analyze the motives for using and not using pedestrian bridges (PB). Material and Methods. A crosssectional survey was conducted of a sample of pedestrian users and non-users of PB; a logistic regression model was used to analyze the motives for use and non-use. Results. The prevalence of non-use was 50.5 % of 813 surveyed pedestrians; the principal reason to use a PB was safety, and not to use it was “laziness”. There were significant differences when analyzing the reason of non-use in the age groups 19 to 36 years, adjusted for education and physical characteristics of the PB ([aOR=1.7; 95 % CI=1.06-2.86] and [ORa.1.9; 95 % CI=1.14-3.33], respectively). Conclusions. The results of this study allow us to identify important aspects to consider –from the perspective of the pedestrians– when constructing new PB and improving existing PB to increase use in areas with a high risk of pedestrian injuries.

REFERENCES

1. Mohan D. Injury control and safety promotion: ethics, science and practice. En: Mohan, D, Tiwari G (eds). Injury prevention and control. Londres: Taylor & Francis, 2000:1-12.

2. Híjar M. El crecimiento urbano y sus consecuencias no planeadas. El caso de los atropellamientos. En: Knaul F, Nigenda G. (eds.) Caleidoscopio de la Salud, México: FUNSALUD,2003:89-97.

3. Híjar M, Troste J, Bronfman M. Pedestrian injuries in México: a multimethod approach. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57(11):2149-2159.

4. Híjar M, Kraus J, Tovar V, Carrillo C. Analysis of fatal pedestrian injuries in Mexico City 1994-1997. Injury Int J Care Injured 2001;(32):279-284.

5. Híjar M, Vasquez-Vela E, Arreola-Rissa C. Pedestrian traffic injuries in México. Inj Control Saf Promot 2003;10(3):37-43.

6. Dawson-Saunders B, Trapp RG. Bioestadística Médica . 2ª ed. México: Manual Moderno, 1996

7. Argimón-Pallas J, Jiménez-Villa J. Métodos de investigación aplicados a la atención primaria de salud. 2ª ed. Barcelona: Mosby-Doyma, 1994

8. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research. Principles and quantitative methods. Belmont California: Lifetime Learning Publications. Wadsworth, 1982.

9. Hazen A, Ehiri J. Road Traffic Injuries: hidden epidemic in less developed countries. J Natl Med Assoc 2006;98(1):73-82.

10. Mohan D. Traffic safety and city structure: lessons for the future. Salud Publica Mex 2008; 50(S1):93-100.

11. Forjouh S. Traffic related injury prevention interventions for low countries. Inj Control Saf Promot 2003; 10 (3):109-118.

12. Tiwari G, Mohan D, Fazio J. Conflict Analysis for prediction of fatal crash locations in mixed traffic stream. Accident Anal Prev 1998;30:207-215.

13. Echeverry J, Mera JJ, Villota J, Zárate C. Actitudes y comportamientos de los peatones en los sitios de alta accidentalidad en Cali, Colombia. Med 2005;36(2):79-84.

14. Mutto M, Kobusingye O, Lett R. The effect of an overpass on pedestrian injuries on a major highway in Kampala. Afr Health Sci 2002; 2(3) 89-93.

15. Secretaría de Gobierno – Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá. La accidentalidad vial en Bogotá DC – Colombia. Mayo de 2002

16. Asociación de peatones de Quito. La ciudad y los peatones. 1ª. edición.2008. [Consultado 23 julio 2009]. Disponible en: www.peatones.org.