Search

Self-medication using alcohol is a common coping response among individuals dealing with trauma as is driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). A common intervention for drivers convicted of DUI, is an alcohol ignition interlock device (IID)—which requires breath samples before starting the car. If the sample is above a predetermined limit (.025), the car will not start, thus preventing impaired driving. IIDs are an effective intervention to reduce rates of drinking and driving among high risk populations; however, limited research has examined how traumatic experiences may impact performance on IIDs. This study is an archival analysis of the Managing Heavy Drinking (MHD) study of drivers in New York state. The MHD is a comprehensive study of drivers convicted of a DUI from 2015–2020. Participants (N = 121) completed questionnaires and provided consent to retrieve information from interlock providers. Outcome variable included high BAC lockout ratios (number of high BAC lockouts [BAC>.08]/number of clean blows [BAC ≤.025]). Other variables included demographic variables, alcohol treatment history, trauma experiences, and prior DUI history. Variables were entered into a structural equation model. In the final structural model, pathways that demonstrated a p-value of greater than.10 were dropped from the model. This produced acceptable overall model fit statistics (χ2 = 27.059(10), p=.003; CFI =.900; NFI =.898; RMSEA =.063). A significant pathway was found from the trauma measure to alcohol use (β =.132), and from alcohol use to interlock performance (β =.636). However, no significant relationship was found between trauma and interlock performance other than through alcohol use. The current study provides a useful framework upon which to understand the role traumatic experiences have on alcohol IID performance. Traumatic experiences are in of themselves insufficient to impact IID performance directly, but it may indirectly impact IID performance through increasing alcohol use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Literature notes the efficacious use of alcohol ignition interlock devices (IID) in reducing rates of drinking and driving while installed on the vehicle. Some drivers who are convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) elect to have their license suspended/revoked instead of installing the device. These individuals represent a high‐risk subsample of drivers, yet limited literature has addressed this concern. The current study seeks to fill this gap using qualitative interviews addressing: (i) why do non‐installers make the choice to not install a mandated IID; and (ii) how are non‐installers managing without the IID? Methods: The study utilises the Managing Heavy Drinkers study of drivers in Erie County, New York, USA. Participants were purposively sampled from a group of non‐installers (n = 6; four females, two males) who completed semi‐structured interviews. Constructed grounded theory was used to develop a theoretical understanding of participant's experiences. Results: To understand why participants elect not to install the IID, thematic analysis revealed: alleviating constraints, predominantly the financial burdens associated with an IID, and institutional mistrust. Additionally, data revealed that participants are managing without the IID by mitigating apprehension. This included driving cautiously to avoid detection and utilising alternative transportation. Discussion and Conclusions: This study furthers understanding of why drivers convicted of a DWI elect not to install an IID. Future research should seek to identify barriers to IID installation. This work provides evidence for establishing institutional protocols that ensure drivers convicted of a DWI receive consistent and correct information about the IID process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Before the COVID‐19 pandemic, very little was known about the impact of social isolation on individuals' alcohol use and misuse. This study examines how socially isolated individuals with a history of heavy drinking used alcohol during the pandemic. Methods: Data for this study came from an add‐on to the Managing Heavy Drinking (MHD) longitudinal study of drivers convicted of DWI that was conducted in Erie County, New York. Pre‐COVID information (October 2019–March 2020) was augmented with a COVID‐19 questionnaire collected between July and August 2020. A total of 92 participants completed the COVID‐19 survey. Results: The sample of problem drinkers showed a significant increase after the pandemic outbreak in the average number of drinking days from 1.99 to 2.49 per week (p = 0.047), but a significant decrease in the average number of drinks per drinking day, from 3.74 to 2.74 (p = 0.003). The proportion of individuals who drank more frequently was greater among those who, before the outbreak had an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score <8 (26% increase) compared with those with an AUDIT score of >8 (13%). Alcohol treatment was also associated with the frequency of drinking, with individuals who were not in alcohol treatment showing a 16% increase in frequency compared with a 10% increase among those in treatment. Further, individuals who, after the outbreak worried about their health (30%) or finances (37%) reported greater increases in the frequency of drinking than those who did not worry about their health (17%) or finances (10%). Conclusions: Overall, the individuals in our sample showed small changes in the frequency andheaviness of drinking after the outbreak of COVID‐19, effects that opposite in direction from one another and thus resulted in no overall change in drinks consumed. Nonetheless, we identified factors that influenced the effects of the pandemic on drinking behavior among individuals convicted of DWI, which emphasizes the need to individualize these individuals' treatment, particularly in the context of dramatic environmental change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alcohol ignition interlock devices (IIDs) reduce rates of drinking and driving when installed on the vehicles of offenders. While the IID is installed on their vehicle, some drivers adapt their drinking behaviors, while others cannot. Heavy alcohol use and mental health concerns reduce treatment adherence in clinical settings, but it has not yet known how they pertain to behavioral adaptation to IIDs. This study focuses on identifying driver typologies as predictors of performance while on alcohol IIDs. The study utilizes the Managing Heavy Drinking study of drivers in New York state. Participants (N = 101; 59 males, 42 females) completed questionnaires assessing demographic information, drinking behaviors, driving history, and mental health measures. All participants had been convicted of a DUI, and installed an IID. Latent class analysis was used to establish typologies and predict lockout ratios. Four typologies emerged and drivers with elevations in mental health concerns had significantly worse lockout ratios than those in other classes. The current study may provide support for interventions designed to identify drivers with comorbid mental health concerns and tailor appropriate interventions to administer while the IID is installed with the aim of improving behavioral adaptation to the device. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some alcohol interventions have been found to have the adverse outcome of increasing non-alcohol-related substance use. It is unknown, however, how changes in alcohol use over the course of alcohol ignition interlocks – a common DUI intervention – may impact other substance use. Methods: Alcohol and cannabis use were measured using hair ethylglucuronide and Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations in blood, respectively. Participants (N = 69) were measured at the interlock installation period and again 6-months later while the interlock was installed. A mixed ANOVA was conducted to examine changes in levels of ethanol and THC over time. Results: On measures of marijuana use, there was a significant interaction effect between the group that increased alcohol use and time F(2, 66) = 7.863, p =.001; partial η2 =.192; as well as a main effect for time F(2, 66) = 21.106, p <.001; partial η2 =.242. Conclusions: Installing interlocks may inadvertently increase cannabis use among those who decrease alcohol use. Crash risk associated with cannabis use is notably less than that of alcohol use, however, continued cannabis use may be problematic when the device is removed and alcohol use is expected to return to the higher pre-interlock levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]