Kenneth H Beck1, Michael Scherer2,3, Eduardo Romano2, Eileen Taylor2, Robert Voas2. 1. Department of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, Maryland, USA. 2. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Psychology, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the drinking patterns and experiences (both positive and negative) among DUI offenders who had installed an ignition interlock. The association between those experiences and interlock performance as measured by the number of times they had a lockout, was also assessed. METHODS: Over 300 DUI offenders who installed an interlock in the State of Florida were recruited and completed an on-line survey at the beginning and end of their interlock restriction. A record of the interlock performance data from each was downloaded and used to determine how many lockouts they experienced during their interlock restriction period. Offenders were defined into two groups; successful cases (having 0 or 1 lockout) or poor performers (have 2 or more lockouts). Chi-square and binary regressions were used to assess differences between groups. RESULTS: Poor performers reported significantly more drinking and were more likely to drink in a context of emotional comfort, yet they were more likely to report positive experiences with the interlock, especially as to its ability to remind them to avoid another DUI by reducing their drinking and driving. No difference was found between these two groups for the interlock's ability to reduce drinking. CONCLUSIONS: People with a more serious drinking pattern and who may be most at risk for recidivating may be more inclined to recognize the potential benefits of the interlock as a DUI preventive countermeasure. More research is needed to identify and influence high risk DUI offenders while on the interlock to increase its effectiveness once the interlock is removed.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the drinking patterns and experiences (both positive and negative) among DUI offenders who had installed an ignition interlock. The association between those experiences and interlock performance as measured by the number of times they had a lockout, was also assessed. METHODS: Over 300 DUI offenders who installed an interlock in the State of Florida were recruited and completed an on-line survey at the beginning and end of their interlock restriction. A record of the interlock performance data from each was downloaded and used to determine how many lockouts they experienced during their interlock restriction period. Offenders were defined into two groups; successful cases (having 0 or 1 lockout) or poor performers (have 2 or more lockouts). Chi-square and binary regressions were used to assess differences between groups. RESULTS: Poor performers reported significantly more drinking and were more likely to drink in a context of emotional comfort, yet they were more likely to report positive experiences with the interlock, especially as to its ability to remind them to avoid another DUI by reducing their drinking and driving. No difference was found between these two groups for the interlock's ability to reduce drinking. CONCLUSIONS:People with a more serious drinking pattern and who may be most at risk for recidivating may be more inclined to recognize the potential benefits of the interlock as a DUI preventive countermeasure. More research is needed to identify and influence high risk DUI offenders while on the interlock to increase its effectiveness once the interlock is removed.
Entities:
Keywords:
DUI offenders; ignition interlock; perceptions and behaviors
Authors: Paul Marques; Scott Tippetts; John Allen; Martin Javors; Christer Alling; Michel Yegles; Fritz Pragst; Friedrich Wurst Journal: Addiction Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Robert B Voas; Anthony Scott Tippetts; Eduardo Romano; Thomas H Nochajski; Amy R Manning; Eileen Taylor; Michael Scherer Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 3.455