Robert B Voas1, Anthony Scott Tippetts1, Eduardo Romano1, Thomas H Nochajski2, Amy R Manning1,2,3, Eileen Taylor1, Michael Scherer1,4. 1. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland, USA. 2. University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, New York, New York, USA. 3. Buffalo State College, Buffalo, New York, USA. 4. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Half of the offenders convicted of impaired driving in the United States are sentenced to install alcohol ignition interlock devices (IIDs), which prevent them from starting their vehicles if they have been drinking. No research has yet explored offenders' patterns of alcohol consumption and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) from the time before the arrest to the time period after the IID is installed. This study aims to fill that gap in knowledge. METHODS: Using the Timeline Follow-back interview procedure, we assessed the daily drinking of 153 convicted DUI offenders' self-reported total alcohol consumption and rates of self-reported driving after drinking over 4 phases: before DUI arrest, between arrest and IID installation, during the phase on the interlock, and after the interlock is removed. Because information about behaviors in each period was not available for every participant, comparisons were made using paired-sample contrasts. RESULTS: Compared with before the arrest, total alcohol use decreased by 50% in the 4-month phase following arrest and before IID installation, though it did not change much afterward. The frequency of drinking and driving decreased sharply after the arrest (-82%), with further decrease upon installation of the interlock (-58%, p = 0.05). The frequency of drinking and driving after the IID was removed returned to preinstallation drinking and driving status (+58%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Participants made significant adjustments to their drinking behavior by adhering to the traditional DUI driving restrictions in the postarrest phase. Although installation of an IID was not associated with a significant change in drinking, it further reduced the frequency of drinking and driving. Evaluations of the IID experience should take into account information on an individual's drinking and DUI behaviors not only before the IID was installed, but before the individual was arrested.
BACKGROUND: Half of the offenders convicted of impaired driving in the United States are sentenced to install alcohol ignition interlock devices (IIDs), which prevent them from starting their vehicles if they have been drinking. No research has yet explored offenders' patterns of alcohol consumption and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) from the time before the arrest to the time period after the IID is installed. This study aims to fill that gap in knowledge. METHODS: Using the Timeline Follow-back interview procedure, we assessed the daily drinking of 153 convicted DUI offenders' self-reported total alcohol consumption and rates of self-reported driving after drinking over 4 phases: before DUI arrest, between arrest and IID installation, during the phase on the interlock, and after the interlock is removed. Because information about behaviors in each period was not available for every participant, comparisons were made using paired-sample contrasts. RESULTS: Compared with before the arrest, total alcohol use decreased by 50% in the 4-month phase following arrest and before IID installation, though it did not change much afterward. The frequency of drinking and driving decreased sharply after the arrest (-82%), with further decrease upon installation of the interlock (-58%, p = 0.05). The frequency of drinking and driving after the IID was removed returned to preinstallation drinking and driving status (+58%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Participants made significant adjustments to their drinking behavior by adhering to the traditional DUI driving restrictions in the postarrest phase. Although installation of an IID was not associated with a significant change in drinking, it further reduced the frequency of drinking and driving. Evaluations of the IID experience should take into account information on an individual's drinking and DUI behaviors not only before the IID was installed, but before the individual was arrested.
Authors: Randy W Elder; Robert Voas; Doug Beirness; Ruth A Shults; David A Sleet; James L Nichols; Richard Compton Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 5.043
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: Michael Scherer; Eduardo Romano; Sagan King; Paul Marques; Ann Romosz; Eileen Taylor; Thomas H Nochajski; Robert Voas; Amy Manning; Scott Tippetts Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 3.346