Driver Monitoring Systems: Perceived Fairness of Consequences when Distractions are Detected

Driver monitoring may become a standard safety feature to discourage distraction in vehicles with or without automated driving functions. Research to date has focused on technology for identifying driver distraction—little is known about how drivers will respond to monitoring systems. An exploratory online survey assessed the perceived risk and reasonableness associated with driving distractions as well as the perceived fairness of potential consequences when a driver monitoring system detects distractions under either manual driving or Level 2 automated driving. Although more re- search is needed, results suggested: (1) fairness was associated with perceived risk; (2) alerts generally were viewed as fair; (3) more severe consequences (feature lockouts, insurance reporting, automation lockouts, involuntary takeovers) generally were viewed as less fair; (4) fairness ratings were similar for manual versus Level 2 driving, with some potential exceptions; and (5) perceived risk of distractions was slightly lower with automated driving.

Levels of Evidence Supporting the North American and European Perioperative Care Guidelines for Anesthesiologists between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review

Background Although there are thousands of published recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines, the extent to which these are supported by high levels of evidence is not known. This study hypothesized that most recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are supported by a low level of evidence. Methods A registered (Prospero CRD42020202932) systematic review was conducted of anesthesia evidence-based recommendations from the major North American and European anesthesiology societies between January 2010 and September 2020 in PubMed and EMBASE. The level of evidence A, B, or C and the strength of recommendation (strong or weak) for each recommendation was mapped using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification system or the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The outcome of interest was the proportion of recommendations supported by levels of evidence A, B, and C. Changes in the level of evidence over time were examined. Risk of bias was assessed using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. Results In total, 60 guidelines comprising 2,280 recommendations were reviewed. Level of evidence A supported 16% (363 of 2,280) of total recommendations and 19% (288 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Level of evidence C supported 51% (1,160 of 2,280) of all recommendations and 50% (756 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Of all the guidelines, 73% (44 of 60) had a low risk of bias. The proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.18 to 4.74; P = 0.933) or level of evidence B versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.72; P = 0.243) did not increase in guidelines that were revised. Year of publication was also not associated with increases in the proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A (relative risk ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23; P = 0.340) or level of evidence B (relative risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15; P = 0.283) compared to level of evidence C. Conclusions Half of the recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines are based on a low level of evidence, and this did not change over time. These findings highlight the need for additional efforts to increase the quality of evidence used to guide decision-making in anesthesiology. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New