Cross-sectional study finds strong link between motivation factors and preventive behaviors in clients, suggesting educational improvements.
Road traffic accidents are a major public health challenge, causing significant mortality and disability globally each year. Given the importance of preventive behaviors in reducing traffic-related incidents, individual motivation and applying knowledge and awareness play critical roles in adopting health-promoting behaviors. Based on the protection motivation theory, this study aimed to investigate the preventive behaviors in reducing road traffic accidents and related factors among clients of comprehensive health service centers in Rasht, Iran. This cross-sectional study was conducted on 238 clients selected through cluster sampling from comprehensive health centers in Rasht. Data collection tools included a preventive behavior questionnaire and a protection motivation theory-based questionnaire addressing traffic accident prevention. After confirming the validity and reliability of the instruments, data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation [SD]) were used for quantitative variables, and inferential statistics included independent t-test, multiple linear regression, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The findings indicated a relatively high level of awareness regarding preventive behaviors, with a mean score of 37.34 (SD=7.55). High scores were also observed across all dimensions of the protection motivation theory. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that "perceived severity" and "self-efficacy" were the strongest predictors of engagement in preventive behaviors. The results highlight the critical role of increasing knowledge and awareness and enhancing motivation to perform preventive actions. Health managers and policymakers are encouraged to incorporate motivational models into educational interventions to improve public health behaviors and reduce road traffic injuries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bagheri et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: