Advertisement

A Comparison of International Drunk-Driving Policies and the Role of Drinking Patterns

  • Wan-Ju Cheng
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: Wan-Ju Cheng, MD, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, China Medical University Hospital, 2 Yude Road, Taichung, 40447, Taiwan
    Affiliations
    Department of Psychiatry, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

    Department of Public Health, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Li-Chung Pien
    Affiliations
    Department of Nursing, Cardinal Tien Junior College of Healthcare and Management, Sindian District, New Taipei City, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author

      Introduction

      Effective drunk-driving policies are not adopted consistently in many countries. To understand how drinking behaviors influence national drunk-driving policymaking, the associations between drunk-driving policies and country-level drinking volumes and patterns were examined.

      Methods

      Data for 194 countries were obtained from the WHO 2012 Global Information System on Alcohol and Health. Country-level drinking behaviors were measured using average drinking volumes and patterns of drinking scores based on six attributes of risky drinking. Drunk-driving policies were categorized into preemptive measures (random breath testing, breath alcohol concentration limits for driving a vehicle, and sobriety checkpoints), penalties (community service, short- or long-term detention, fines, suspension or revocation of license, and vehicle impoundment), mandatory treatment, and ignition interlock. Data analysis was conducted in 2017. The percentages of each policy adoption were examined in countries with different drinking behaviors. The internal consistencies of preemptive measures were calculated using Cronbach’s α. A structural equation model was established to examine the associations between drinking behaviors and drunk-driving policy categories, after adjusting for national income levels and general alcohol policies.

      Results

      Mandatory treatment and preemptive measures were less commonly adopted than penalties were. The adoption of preemptive measures had a low consistency level, and the consistency level decreased with drinking pattern riskiness. Risky drinking patterns were negatively associated with mandatory treatment policy.

      Conclusions

      Drinking patterns are associated with national drunk-driving policymaking. Accessible medical treatment and comprehensive preemptive measures should be advocated in countries with risky drinking patterns.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Homel R.
        Random breath testing in Australia: getting it to work according to specifications.
        Addiction. 1993; 88: 27S-33Shttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02159.x
        • Desapriya E.
        • Shimizu S.
        • Pike I.
        • Subzwari S.
        • Scime G.
        Impact of lowering the legal blood alcohol concentration limit to 0.03 on male, female and teenage drivers involved alcohol-related crashes in Japan.
        Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2007; 14: 181-187https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300701440634
        • Shults R.A.
        • Elder R.W.
        • Sleet D.A.
        • et al.
        Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving.
        Am J Prev Med. 2001; 21: 66-88https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00381-6
        • Bergen G.
        • Pitan A.
        • Qu S.
        • et al.
        Publicized sobriety checkpoint programs: a community guide systematic review.
        Am J Prev Med. 2014; 46: 529-539https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.018
        • Wiliszowski C.H.
        • Fell J.C.
        • McKnight A.S.
        • Tippetts A.S.
        • Ciccel J.D.
        An evaluation of three intensive supervision programs for serious DWI offenders.
        Ann Adv Automot Med. 2010; 54: 375-387
        • Vaucher P.
        • Michiels W.
        • Joris Lambert S.
        • et al.
        Benefits of short educational programmes in preventing drink-driving recidivism: a ten-year follow-up randomised controlled trial.
        Int J Drug Policy. 2016; 32: 70-76https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.03.006
        • Ouimet M.C.
        • Dongier M.
        • Di Leo I.
        • et al.
        A randomized controlled trial of brief motivational interviewing in impaired driving recidivists: a 5-year follow-up of traffic offenses and crashes.
        Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013; 37: 1979-1985https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.12180
        • Miller P.G.
        • Curtis A.
        • Sonderlund A.
        • Day A.
        • Droste N.
        Effectiveness of interventions for convicted DUI offenders in reducing recidivism: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
        Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2015; 41: 16-29https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2014.966199
        • Lapham S.C.
        • Todd M.
        Do deterrence and social-control theories predict driving after drinking 15 years after a DWI conviction?.
        Accid Anal Prev. 2012; 45: 142-151https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.12.005
        • Longest B.B.
        • Association of University Programs in Health Administration
        Policy formulation: agenda setting.
        Health Policymaking in the United States. 6th ed. Health Administration Press, Association of University Programs in Health Administration, Chicago, IL2015: 161-202
        • Esser M.B.
        • Bao J.
        • Jernigan D.H.
        • Hyder A.A.
        Evaluation of the evidence base for the alcohol industry’s actions to reduce drink driving globally.
        Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 707-713https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303026
        • Shults R.A.
        • Bergen G.
        Attitudes towards requiring ignition interlocks for all driving while intoxicated offenders: findings from the 2010 HealthStyles Survey.
        Inj Prev. 2013; 19: 68-71https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040367
        • Wagenaar A.C.
        • Streff F.M.
        Public opinion on alcohol policies.
        J Public Health Policy. 1990; 11: 189-205https://doi.org/10.2307/3342751
        • Seo S.
        • Chun S.
        • Newell M.
        • Yun M.
        Korean public opinion on alcohol control policy: a cross-sectional International Alcohol Control study.
        Health Policy. 2015; 119: 33-43https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.016
        • Rehm J.
        • Zatonksi W.
        • Taylor B.
        • Anderson P.
        Epidemiology and alcohol policy in Europe.
        Addiction. 2011; 106: 11-19https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03326.x
        • Korcha R.A.
        • Cherpitel C.J.
        • Ye Y.
        • et al.
        Alcohol use and injury severity among emergency department patients in six countries.
        J Addict Nurs. 2013; 24: 158-165https://doi.org/10.1097/JAN.0b013e3182a04b47
        • Chou S.P.
        • Chun S.
        • Smith S.
        • Ruan J.
        • Li T.K.
        • Grant B.F.
        Episodic heavy drinking, problem drinking and injuries: results of the WHO/NIAAA collaborative emergency room study in South Korea.
        Alcohol. 2012; 46: 407-413https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2012.03.002
        • Cherpitel C.J.
        • Ye Y.
        • Bond J.
        • et al.
        Multi-level analysis of alcohol-related injury among emergency department patients: a cross-national study.
        Addiction. 2005; 100: 1840-1850https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01257.x
        • Lindman R.E.
        • Lang A.R.
        The alcohol-aggression stereotype: a cross-cultural comparison of beliefs.
        Int J Addict. 1994; 29: 1-13https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089409047365
        • Rehm J.
        • Rehn N.
        • Room R.
        • et al.
        The global distribution of average volume of alcohol consumption and patterns of drinking.
        Eur Addict Res. 2003; 9: 147-156https://doi.org/10.1159/000072221
        • Rehm J.
        • Monteiro M.
        • Room R.
        • et al.
        Steps towards constructing a global comparative risk analysis for alcohol consumption: determining indicators and empirical weights for patterns of drinking, deciding about theoretical minimum, and dealing with different consequences.
        Eur Addict Res. 2001; 7: 138-147https://doi.org/10.1159/000050731
        • WHO
        Management of Substance Abuse Team.
        Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland2014
        • Room R.
        Intoxication and bad behaviour: understanding cultural differences in the link.
        Soc Sci Med. 2001; 53: 189-198https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00330-0
        • Tomarken A.J.
        • Waller N.G.
        Structural equation modeling: strengths, limitations, and misconceptions.
        Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005; 1: 31-65https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144239
        • Alcohol and Public Policy Group
        Alcohol: no ordinary commodity—a summary of the second edition.
        Addiction. 2010; 105: 769-779https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02945.x
        • Taxmana F.S.
        • Piquerob A.
        On preventing drunk driving recidivism: an examination of rehabilitation and punishment approaches.
        J Crim Justice. 1998; 26: 129-143https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(97)00075-5
        • Stewart K.
        • Silcock D.
        • Wegman F.
        Reducing drink driving in low- and middle-income countries: challenges and opportunities.
        Traffic Inj Prev. 2012; 13: 93-95https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.634464
      1. WHO. Global Health Observatory (GHO) data. Global Information System on Alcohol and Health (GISAH). www.who.int/gho/alcohol/en/. Accessed March 24, 2017.

        • Rabiee R.
        • Agardh E.
        • Coates M.M.
        • Allebeck P.
        • Danielsson A.K.
        Alcohol-attributed disease burden and alcohol policies in the BRICS-countries during the years 1990–2013.
        J Glob Health. 2017; 7: 010404https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.07.010404
        • Fell J.C.
        • Voas R.B.
        The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States.
        Addiction. 2014; 109: 869-874https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12365
      2. The World Bank. Data. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups. Accessed April 10, 2017

        • Byrne B.M.
        Structural Equation Modeling With Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming.
        Routledge, New York2013
        • Greenberg M.D.
        • Morral A.R.
        • Jain A.K.
        Drink-driving and DUI recidivists’ attitudes and beliefs: a longitudinal analysis.
        J Stud Alcohol. 2005; 66: 640-647https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2005.66.640
        • Cherpitel C.J.
        • Ye Y.
        • Bond J.
        • et al.
        Multi-level analysis of alcohol-related injury and drinking pattern: emergency department data from 19 countries.
        Addiction. 2012; 107: 1263-1272https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03793.x
        • Cherpitel C.J.
        • Bond J.
        • Ye Y.
        • et al.
        Alcohol-related injury in the ER: a cross-national meta-analysis from the Emergency Room Collaborative Alcohol Analysis Project (ERCAAP).
        J Stud Alcohol. 2003; 64: 641-649https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2003.64.641
        • Whitlock E.P.
        • Polen M.R.
        • Green C.A.
        • Orleans T.
        • Klein J.
        • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
        Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140: 557-568https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00017
        • Anton R.F.
        • O’Malley S.S.
        • Ciraulo D.A.
        • et al.
        Combined pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions for alcohol dependence: the COMBINE study: a randomized controlled trial.
        JAMA. 2006; 295: 2003-2017https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.17.2003
        • Nelson T.F.
        • Xuan Z.
        • Babor T.F.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and the strength of evidence of U.S. alcohol control policies.
        Am J Prev Med. 2013; 45: 19-28https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.008
        • DeYoung D.J.
        An evaluation of the effectiveness of alcohol treatment, driver license actions and jail terms in reducing drunk driving recidivism in California.
        Addiction. 1997; 92: 989-997https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02978.x
        • Nochajski T.H.
        • Stasiewicz P.R.
        Relapse to driving under the influence (DUI): a review.
        Clin Psychol Rev. 2006; 26: 179-195https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.11.006
        • Stafford M.C.
        • Warr M.
        A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence.
        J Res Crime Delinq. 1993; 30: 123-135https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030002001
        • Keiter M.
        Just say no excuse: The rise and fall of the intoxication defense.
        J Crim Law Criminol. 1997; 87: 482-520https://doi.org/10.2307/1143952
        • Room R.
        Drinking, violence, gender and causal attribution: a Canadian case study in science, law and policy.
        Contemp Drug Probl. 1996; 23: 649-686https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099602300407
        • Anderson P.
        • Chisholm D.
        • Fuhr D.C.
        Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol.
        Lancet. 2009; 373: 2234-2246https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60744-3
        • Cobiac L.
        • Vos T.
        • Doran C.
        • Wallace A.
        Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent alcohol-related disease and injury in Australia.
        Addiction. 2009; 104: 1646-1655https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02708.x
        • Ditsuwan V.
        • Lennert Veerman J.
        • Bertram M.
        • Vos T.
        Cost-effectiveness of interventions for reducing road traffic injuries related to driving under the influence of alcohol.
        Value Health. 2013; 16: 23-30https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2209
        • McCartt A.T.
        • Leaf W.A.
        • Farmer C.M.
        • Eichelberger A.H.
        Washington State’s alcohol ignition interlock law: effects on recidivism among first-time DUI offenders.
        Traffic Inj Prev. 2013; 14: 215-229https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.708885
        • Lahausse J.A.
        • Fildes B.N.
        Cost-benefit analysis of an alcohol ignition interlock for installation in all newly registered vehicles.
        Traffic Inj Prev. 2009; 10: 528-537https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580903173706
        • Voas R.B.
        • DuPont R.L.
        • Talpins S.K.
        • Shea C.L.
        Towards a national model for managing impaired driving offenders.
        Addiction. 2011; 106: 1221-1227https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03339.x
        • Gilligan C.
        • Kuntsche E.
        • Gmel G.
        Adolescent drinking patterns across countries: associations with alcohol policies.
        Alcohol Alcohol. 2012; 47: 732-737https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/ags083