Table 2.

Literature summary grouped by the type of technology used.

Study		Country	Method	Sample and size	Significant findings for technology use	Identified barriers to technology use
In-vehicle technologies
	McGehee, 2007 [16]	United States	Driving data analysis (technology used: DriveCam)	26 teens (16-17 years old)	Technology with periodic feedback and parental involvement were effective in reducing unsafe driving.	N/Aa
	Musicant, 2010 [12]	Israel	Driving data analysis	32 young drivers (17-24 years old)	Availability of feedback reduced event frequency by 50%,	N/A
	Carney, 2010 [17]	United States	Driving data analysis (technology used: DriveCam)	18 teens (16 years old)	Intervention with visual feedback and weekly reports and videos to teens and parents increased safe driving.	N/A
	Prato, 2010 [18]	Israel	Driving data analysis and survey	62 teen-parent pairs	Different sexes exhibited different risky behaviors; Tendency to seek sensation affects risky driving; Driving behavior of parents, duration of supervised driving, and level of parental monitoring influenced risky behavior.	N/A
	Farmer, 2010 [13]	United States	Driving data analysis	85 teens (16-17 years old)	Reinforcement from parents was necessary for sustainable safe driving; Push notifications (emailing report cards and personalized feedback) were more effective than pull notifications (website access).	Alerts can be annoying; Too much information provided could be discouraging for parents
	Guttman, 2011 [21]	Israel	Interview	906 parents of young drivers (17-24 years old)	Early stages of driving were considered a better time for installing the technology; Financial benefits and environmental considerations were perceived as incentives; Security of data and privacy of teens were common concerns; Technology may promote parent-teen driver communication; Parents should have access to monitoring data.	Cost; Security and privacy concerns; Confronting the young driver
	Simons-Morton, 2013 [14]	United States	Driving data analysis and survey (technology used: DriveCam)	90 parent-teen couples (~16 years old)	Parental involvement increases effectiveness.	N/A
	Simons-Morton, 2015 [15]	United States	Driving data analysis and survey	42 teens (~16 years old)	Social norms were important in risky behavior; Driving alone was riskier than with passengers.	N/A
	Gesser-Edelsburg, 2013 [19]	Israel	Interview	137 teens (15-18 years old)	In-vehicle technology was an objective and credible source for driving; Replaced the role model of parents with objective feedback from the device.	Trust issues within parent-teen relationship; Invasion of privacy; Stress from parental punishment based on feedback; Doubts about the technology improving driving skills
	Farah, 2013 [11]	Israel	Event frequency analysis (technology used: GreenRoad Tech)	212 teen-parent pairs	Periodic driving feedback, parental involvement, and guidance were effective in reducing risky driving.	N/A
	Weiss, 2018 [20]	United States	Interview (technology used: advanced driver-assistance system)	24 teens (16-19 years old) and 12 parents	Teens were knowledgeable about and comfortable with the technology; Teen and parents preferred using a non–advanced driver-assistance system car to improve driving skills.	Teens are skeptical about abilities of the technology, knowing its limitations; The idea of giving control to a “machine” is not positively perceived
Smartphone
	Musicant, 2015 [23]	Israel	Interview and survey	24 scouts and 22 cadets (17-19 years old)	Group incentives and low cost improved uptake of in-vehicle technology.	Forgetfulness; Battery consumption; Lack of incentives
	Creaser, 2015 [22]	United States	Survey	274 teens and 272 parents	The blocking app could be effective for new drivers; Parental involvement with the app increased the effectiveness.	Bypassing the app or using a friend’s phone
	Kervick, 2015 [24]	Ireland	Survey	333 teens (18-24 years old)	Perceived gains from use of the app and social influence affected acceptance of the driving support app.	N/A
Gamification with smartphone
	Steinberger, 2017 [25]	Australia	Design analysis and interview	24 young men (~20 years old)	Economic and anticipatory driving were engaging; Drivers expected a challenge from the game; Interaction with others was important; Personalization was desired	N/A
	Steinberger, 2017 [26]	Australia	Driving data analysis and interview	32 young men (18-25 years old)	Ambient feedback with colors was useful.	Instant visual feedback can be distracting; Screen positioning can be distracting

^aN/A: not available.