Convicted drinking and driving offenders: Comparing alcohol use before and after the pandemic outbreak.

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.

Changes in Alcohol Use and Drinking and Driving Outcomes From Before Arrest for Driving Under the Influence to After Interlock Removal.

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.

Understanding non-installers of the ignition interlock device: A qualitative analysis.

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.

Typologies of Drivers Convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol as Predictors of Alcohol Ignition Interlock Performance.

Background: 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. Objectives: This study focuses on identifying driver typologies as predictors of performance while on alcohol IIDs. Methods: 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. Results: Four typologies emerged and drivers with elevations in mental health concerns had significantly worse lockout ratios than those in other classes. Conclusions: 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.

The impact of interlock installation on driving behavior and drinking behavior related to driving.

OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial body of evidence that the recidivism of impaired-driving offenders is reduced while an ignition interlock device (IID) is on their vehicles. This study examines changes in driving behaviors and drinking behaviors used by DWI offenders to manage driving with the IID. METHODS: A total of 166 IID participants who completed two surveys covering the period from arrest to IID installation (T1) and during IID use (T2) were examined. Four domains were covered: demographics, driving environments and transportation needs, reported driving activity, and reported drinking activities. Participants were on average 38 years old, 43% were female, 35% completed college, 34% had an income of more than $50,000, and 83% were employed. For those who provided it, the mean blood alcohol content (BAC) at arrest was .184 g/dL, with only 8 (5%) individuals below .08 g/dL, and 93 (56%) at over .18 g/dL. About 45% were repeat DWI offenders. RESULTS: Between T1 and T2 there was a slight increase in acknowledging public transportation was available (p=.001), an increase in other individuals driving the interlock-equipped vehicle (p=.002), an increase in the number of vehicles in the household not registered to the DWI offender (p< .001), and an increase in the number of participants who reported that driving was important to their lifestyle (p=.008). Initial (T1) expectations about whether the interlock would be a problem were significantly different from actual experiences reported in T2 (p<.001). With respect to alcohol consumption, 14% reported abstinence at T2 compared to 2% at T1 (p=.001) and the number of drinks per drinking occasion decreased from a mean of 4.90 at T1 to 3.14 at T2 (p=.001), but the number of drinking occasions increased by a third (p=.003). The number of drinking locations (p=.001), the frequency of stopping after work for a drink (p=.001), and drinking at a bar all decreased (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interlock users make some adjustments in how they drink, the amount they drink, and where they drink. This finding suggests that there may be methods that can be used to extend the benefits of the IID beyond the sanction period.

Potential for cannabis adaptation among participants in a drunk driving intervention.

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 η 2 =.192; as well as a main effect for time F(2, 66) = 21.106, p <.001; partial η 2 =.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.

Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention as Standard Practice: Working with the American Indian/Native Alaskan Populations.

Alcohol use and the resulting problems associated with high-risk drinking in the American Indian/Native Alaskan (AI/NA) population are well-documented, as alcohol misuse has taken an incredible toll on many AI/NA communities. Presently, both overall health issues and alcohol use occur disproportionately within this population. This article provides an updated overview of the impact of alcohol use in the United States and within AI/NA communities specifically. It also provides recommendations for an alcohol-related screening and brief intervention instrument that social workers can begin using in their practice and can be utilized within the AI/NA community.

Bridging the gap from availability to accessibility: providing health and mental health services in schools.

The state of child and adolescent overall health in the United States evidences the need for both prevention and treatment. Although much time and energy has been spent in recent years discussing and improving health benefit coverage and affordability for children, physical access to services has not kept pace with these changes. This article will introduce four major physical health issues (obesity, diabetes, asthma, and teen pregnancy/STD) and five key mental health issues (suicide, depression, ADHD, aggression, and violence) facing young people today. In an effort to answer the question, "What can be done?" school-based health clinics and their impact on health and educational outcomes are examined.