Edukative Unfall- und Verletzungsprävention bei Jugendlichen. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Evaluation des P.A.R.T.Y.-Programms in Deutschland und zur Konzeption eines theoretischen Wirkungsmodells

Abstract

Background and objectives: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults worldwide and in Germany. Despite the observable decrease in road traffic deaths due to injuries, traffic-related accidents are considered as a significant factor in the high incidence of injuries. Misconduct or risky behaviour often precede them, which highlights the significance of behavioural preventive measures. The prevention pro-gram P.A.R.T.Y., during which school classes spend a day in an accident clinic and get to know, among other things, the care processes for severely injured people, aims to change the behaviour of young people and thus prevent unintentional injuries. The objective of the pre-sent study was to evaluate the P.A.R.T.Y. program in Germany and to develop a theory-based impact model.

Methods: Using a longitudinal quasi-experimental study design, 19 P.A.R.T.Y. days were included in the study. Students from the 19 participating school classes (n = 484) and adolescents from 11 control classes without intervention (n = 315) were surveyed at three measurement times (immediately before and after the intervention and four to five months there-after) about their traffic-related behaviour and theory-based determinants of behaviour. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate short- and medium-term effects. In addition, path analysis models were used to examine the extent to which theory-based associations of behaviour change can be reconstructed.

Results: Immediately after the intervention, small positive effects could be shown for most of the parameters. These effects could not be observed in the medium term and especially not for self-reported behaviour. Both in the short and medium term, the results showed a significant effect only on the threat-related characteristic perceived severity of accidental injuries. In the path analyses, the predictive influence of cognitive beliefs in particularly on a change in behavioural intention could be confirmed, such as self-efficacy or social norms. However, the P.A.R.T.Y. programme had no or only short-term effects on these factors.

Conclusions: The challenge of behavioural prevention approaches is to influence behaviour sustainably and its underlying determinants so that injuries related to risky behaviour can be avoided more frequently in the future. Strategies based almost only on fear appeals, as primarily communicated in the P.A.R.T.Y. programme, seem to be suitable to achieve this objective only to a limited extent and rather in the short term, especially if the strengthening of psychosocial resources is not taken sufficiently into consideration. Accordingly, it should be considered how the P.A.R.T.Y. programme could be modified or further developed in order to focus more strongly on changing these determinants and to promote them among young people.