The cost-effectiveness of mandatory 20 mph zones for the prevention of injuries

Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom)

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 40-48

  Peters, Jaime L ^a   Anderson, Rob ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cost benefit analysis; cost effectiveness; cost utility analysis; public health; road safety

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; INJURY; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

ACCIDENTS, TRAFFIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

EID: 84874781768     PISSN: 17413842     EISSN: 17413850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fds067     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Owen L, Morgan A, Fischer A et al. The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. J Public Health 2012;34:37-45.
2. Peters J, Anderson R, Moxham T. Interventions to prevent unintential injury in children on the road. Report 3: Cost-effectiveness Modelling of Road and Street Design-based Interventions Aimed at Reducing Unintentional Injuries in Children. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK, 2009.
3. Ashton K, Moxham T, Frier J et al. Interventions to prevent unintential injury in children. Report 1: Systematic Reviews of Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Road and Street Design-Based Interventions Aimed at Reducing Unintentional Injuries in Children. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK, 2009.
4. Garside R, Ashton K, Moxham T et al. Interventions to prevent unintentional injury in children on the road. Report 2: Barriers to, and Facilitators of, the Prevention of Unintentional Injury in Children on the Road. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK 2009.
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Preventing unintential road injuries among under-15s: road design (PH31), 2010. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/PH31 (13 January 2012, date last accessed).
6. Grundy C, Steinbach R, Edwards P et al. Effect of 20 mph traffic zones on road injuries in London, 1986-2006: controlled interrupted time series analysis. Br Med J 2009;336:b4469.
7. Burns A, Johnstone N, Macdonald N. 20 mph Speed reduction initiative. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Central Research Unit, Scotland, 2001.
8. Cheshire County CouncilJacobs JE. Mixed priority routes. A534 Nantwich Road, Crewe, 2008.
9. Manchester City Council, Jacobs JE. Mixed priority routes. A6100 Wilmslow Road, Rusholme, Manchester. Final Report, 2008.
10. Norfolk County CouncilJacobs JE. Mixed priority routes. Prince of Wales Road, Norwich. Final Report, 2008.
11. Grundy C, Steinbach R, Edwards P et al. 20 mph zones and road safety in London: a report to the London Road Safety Unit, 2008.
12. Ward H, Lyons R, Gabbe B et al. Review of police road casualty injury severity classification-a feasibility study, 2010.
13. Hopkin JM, Simpson HF. Valuation of road accidents, 1995.
14. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance GW et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
15. Department for Transport. The accidents sub-objective. TAG Unit 3.4.1, Department for Transport, UK 2009.
16. Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G, Philip RR. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation vs standard gamble. Oxford Econ Pap 1995;47:676-95.
17. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, England, 1999.
18. Office for National Statistics. Interim life tables, ONS, UK, 2005.
19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Methods for development of NICE public health guidance, NICE, UK, 2006.
20. Nyman JA, Barleen NA, Kirdruang P. Quality-adjusted life years lost from nonfatal motor vehicle accident injuries. Med Decis Mak 2008;28(6):819-28.
21. Department for Transport. Road casualties Great Britain 2007, Department for Transport, UK, 2008.
22. Chalkidou K, Culyer A, Naidoo B et al. Cost-effectiveness public health guidance: asking questions from the decision-maker's viewpoint. Health Econ 2008;14:441-8. (Pubitemid 351419703)
23. Van Houtven G, Rousu M, Yang J-C et al. Valuation of morbidity losses: meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay and health status measures. Final Report for Food and Drug Administration, 2003.
24. Richardson J. Cost utiilty analysis: what should be measured? Soc Sci Med 1994;39:7-21. (Pubitemid 24162189)
25. McKie J, Shripton B, Ricahrdson J et al. The monetary value of a life year: evidence from a qualitative study of treatment costs. Health Econ 2011;20:945-57.
26. Erke A, Elvik R. Making Vision Zero Real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents and Making Them Less Severe. Oslo, Norway: Institute of Transport Economics, 2007.
27. Saelensminde K. Cost-benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks taking into account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic. Trans Res Part A 2004;38: 593-606. (Pubitemid 40058675)