↓ Skip to main content

An organizational analysis of road traffic crash prevention to explain the difficulties of a national program in a low income country

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An organizational analysis of road traffic crash prevention to explain the difficulties of a national program in a low income country
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1472-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tania Vogel, Daniel Reinharz, Marissa Gripenberg, Hubert Barennes

Abstract

Road traffic crashes (RTC), that daily kill 3400 people and leave 15,000 with a permanent disability could be prevented through the implementation of safety programs developed in partnership with governments and institutions. The relationship between key stakeholders can be a crucial determinant to the effectiveness of road safety programs. This issue has rarely been addressed. We conducted a detailed organizational analysis of the stakeholders involved in road safety programs in Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). A case study was performed. The framework used was a snowball effect in which the characterization of all key stakeholders and the links between them, as well as the factors that led to these links, were determined. The effect of the relations between key stakeholders on the prevention of RTC was assessed through an analysis of the transactional, intangible and controlling factors that influence these relationships. The design and implementation of road safety programs in Lao PDR suffer from weak relationships between stakeholders and a poorly functional bicephal leadership between the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and the non-governmental organisation called Handicap International. This poor coordination between key stakeholders is evident, particularly in the area of collective action and is reinforced by a lack of interest from several different stakeholders. Most agencies do not prioritize road safety. Uneven distribution of funding is another contributing factor. Strengthening the leadership is crucial to the success of the program. Some organisations have skills, power the decision making and the allocation of resources in regards to road safety programs. Encouraging participation of these organizations through a more prominent position would thus result in a better collaboration. Non-monetary rewards would further help to strengthen collaborative work. The bicephal nature of the leadership of road safety programs proves detrimental, is associated with a weak coalition between stakeholders, and contributes to the declaimed poor effectiveness of the existing programs. The study has identified non-monetary and realistic means of strengthening the collaboration between key stakeholders. Stakeholders need to revise their interpretive schemes, in order to actively support the reinforcement of government leadership of road safety policies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 10 27%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Engineering 4 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2015.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,616
of 4,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,235
of 276,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#146
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.