BACKGROUND: Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major cause of death and disability. Although a broad array of programs designed to curb DUI incidents are currently offered to both first-time and recidivist DUI offenders, existing evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs have reported mixed results. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the results of DUI program evaluations and determine the strength of the available evidence for reducing recidivism for different types of programs. METHODS: A systematic review of all EBSCO databases, EMBASE, PubMed, ProQuest, Sociological Abstracts and TRIS was conducted to identify evaluations of treatments/interventions to prevent DUI offenses. Additional articles were identified from reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: A total of 42 relevant studies were identified by the search strategy. Of these, 33 utilized non-experimental evaluation designs or reported insufficient data to allow effect sizes to be calculated, making meta-analysis unfeasible. Evaluations of several different program types reported evidence of some level of effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Because of the general lack of high quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of DUI prevention programs, it is not possible to make conclusive statements about the types of programs that are likely to be most effective. Nonetheless, there was some evidence to support the effectiveness of programs that utilize intensive supervision and education. There is a need for future evaluations to adopt more scientifically rigorous research designs to establish the effects of these programs.
BACKGROUND: Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major cause of death and disability. Although a broad array of programs designed to curb DUI incidents are currently offered to both first-time and recidivist DUI offenders, existing evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs have reported mixed results. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the results of DUI program evaluations and determine the strength of the available evidence for reducing recidivism for different types of programs. METHODS: A systematic review of all EBSCO databases, EMBASE, PubMed, ProQuest, Sociological Abstracts and TRIS was conducted to identify evaluations of treatments/interventions to prevent DUI offenses. Additional articles were identified from reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: A total of 42 relevant studies were identified by the search strategy. Of these, 33 utilized non-experimental evaluation designs or reported insufficient data to allow effect sizes to be calculated, making meta-analysis unfeasible. Evaluations of several different program types reported evidence of some level of effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Because of the general lack of high quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of DUI prevention programs, it is not possible to make conclusive statements about the types of programs that are likely to be most effective. Nonetheless, there was some evidence to support the effectiveness of programs that utilize intensive supervision and education. There is a need for future evaluations to adopt more scientifically rigorous research designs to establish the effects of these programs.
Authors: Jennifer Miles; Andrea Acevedo; Lee Panas; Grant Ritter; Kevin Campbell; Michelle Delk Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Thomas G Brown; Marie Claude Ouimet; Louise Nadeau; Jacques Tremblay; Christina Gianoulakis; Sophie Couture; Nathaniel Moxley-Kelly Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Karen Chan Osilla; Susan M Paddock; Colleen M McCullough; Lisa Jonsson; Katherine E Watkins Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Nathan T Kearns; Heidemarie Blumenthal; Ateka A Contractor; Elizabeth R Aston; Jane Metrik Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.591