Brief Motivational Interventions Are Associated With Reductions in Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among College Drinkers

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Cannabis, and Delta-8 THC: Perceived Likelihood, Risk Perceptions, and Behaviors

Driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or cannabis poses public health risks. Little is known about DUI of Delta-8 THC, a newer cannabis product. Using 2022 survey data among 189 U.S. adults ages 18-25 (58.73% male, 59.26% non-Hispanic White), multivariable logistic regression examined substance-specific (alcohol, cannabis, Delta-8) DUI perceived likelihood and risk in relation to past-year DUI among those with past-year use of each. Overall, 72.49% reported past-year alcohol use, 50.53% cannabis, and 22.46% Delta-8. Among those reporting past-year use of each respective substance, 33.58% reported DUI of alcohol, 32.63% cannabis, and 57.14% Delta-8. On average, participants had the same DUI perceived likelihood ("somewhat unlikely") across substances and perceived alcohol DUI as riskiest. Higher alcohol DUI perceived likelihood and lower perceived risk were associated with alcohol-related DUI. Greater cannabis-related perceived likelihood (but not risk) was associated with cannabis-related DUI. Neither Delta-8 DUI perceived likelihood nor risk were associated with Delta-8 DUI. In sum, perceived DUI likelihood for alcohol, cannabis, or Delta-8 tended to be similar. Among those with past-year use of each, the proportion of DUI was highest for Delta-8. Interventions should target DUI-related perceived likelihood and promote protective behavioral strategies that reduce substance-specific DUI risk.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

Injunctive Norms and Driving Under the Influence and Riding With an Impaired Driver Among Young Adults in Washington State

PURPOSE

Alcohol- and cannabis-impaired driving behaviors remain a public health concern especially among young adults (i.e., ages 18-25). Limited updates to prevention efforts for these behaviors may be due, in part, to limited understanding of malleable psychosocial predictors. The current study assessed associations between perceived injunctive norms (i.e., acceptability) of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI-A) and cannabis (DUI-C), and riding with a driver under the influence of alcohol (RWI-A) and cannabis (RWI-C) in Washington State young adults.

METHODS

Participants included 1,941 young adults from the 2019 cohort of the Washington Young Adult Health Survey. Weighted logistic regressions assessed the associations between peer injunctive norms and impaired driving-related behaviors.

RESULTS

A weighted total of 11.5% reported DUI-A, 12.4% DUI-C, 10.9% RWI-A, and 20.9% RWI-C at least once in the past 30 days. Overlap between the outcomes was observed, indicating some young adults had engaged in multiple impaired driving-related behaviors. After controlling for substance use frequency, weighted logistic regressions indicated more positive perceived injunctive norms were associated with nearly 2 ½ times higher odds of DUI-A, 8 times higher odds of DUI-C, 4 times higher odds of RWI-A and six and a half times higher odds of RWI-C.

DISCUSSION

Results increase the understanding of how injunctive norms-a potentially malleable psychosocial factor-are associated with four impaired driving-related outcomes. Prevention programs that focus on assessing and addressing the norms of these outcomes individually and collectively, such as normative feedback interventions and media campaigns, may be helpful in reducing these behaviors.

A randomized pilot trial of a mobile phone-based brief intervention with personalized feedback and interactive text messaging to reduce driving after cannabis use and riding with a cannabis impaired driver

INTRODUCTION

Driving after cannabis use (DACU) and riding with a cannabis-impaired driver (RWCD) are national public health concerns. Though driving impairments and increased crash risk make DACU and RWCD two of the riskiest cannabis-related behaviors, many continue to drive after use and ride with others who are under the influence and do not view DACU or RWCD as dangerous. The current study examined the efficacy of an accessible, low-cost, mobile phone-based brief intervention aimed at reducing DACU and RWCD among college cannabis users in the context of a randomized three-group pilot trial.

METHOD

Participants were 97 college cannabis users (67.4 % women; average age = 21.34; 80.4 % Caucasian) who endorsed DACU at least three times in the past three months. After completing baseline measures, the study randomly assigned participants to one of three conditions: a) a substance impaired-driving personalized feedback plus MI-style interactive text messaging intervention (PF + MIT); b) a substance impaired-driving personalized feedback only intervention (PF); and c) a substance information control condition (IC). All conditions completed outcome measures three months postintervention.

RESULTS

Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) analyses indicated that after controlling for sex, cannabis users in the PF + MIT condition significantly reduced DACU and RWCD over time compared to those in the IC condition.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide preliminary support for the short-term efficacy of a mobile phone-based intervention in decreasing DACU and RWCD among college cannabis users. Future research should determine whether these reductions in driving behaviors persist past three months.

Recidivism prevention for impaired driving: Longitudinal 5-year outcomes from Quebec's severity-based intervention assignment program

INTRODUCTION

Driving while impaired by alcohol (DWI) is a persistent problem. Tailoring intervention modality to client risk and needs (i.e., risk/needs) is posited to both reduce recidivism more efficiently than uniform approaches and circumvent overtreatment or undertreatment. DWI drivers in Quebec must participate in a severity-based intervention assignment program to be relicensed, but like most tailoring programs it has yet to undergo systematic scrutiny. The current longitudinal cohort study tests two main hypotheses underpinning this approach: 1) drivers classified at higher recidivism risk based on their arrest characteristics (DWI_R) show poorer outcomes over up to 5-years postassessment compared to drivers classified at lower risk (DWI_F); and 2) for both DWI_R and DWI_F groups, assignment of drivers with greater risk/needs to intensive intervention (II) will be advantageous for reducing recidivism risk compared to assignment into brief intervention (BI) for those with lower risk/needs.

METHODS

Drivers who entered the program from 2012 to 2016 were followed to the end of 2018 (N = 37,612). Survival analysis examined the predictive validity of the initial classification into DWI_R or DWI_F groups for documented recidivism over a follow-up of up to 5 years. Logistic regression discontinuity evaluated the relative outcomes of drivers who were assigned to either BI or II. The study explored interaction effects between classification and intervention assignment with age and sex.

RESULTS

In line with the hypothesis, the average hazard of recidivism was 58 % greater in DWI_R drivers compared to DWI_F drivers. In both DWI_F and DWI_R drivers, assignment of drivers with greater risk/needs to II was associated with reduced recidivism compared to assignment of drivers with lower risk/needs to BI, with 57 % and 35 % decreased probability of recidivism, respectively. Younger age was more strongly associated with recidivism risk in DWI_F drivers than in DWI_R drivers.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study found that Quebec's severity-based intervention assignment approach accurately identifies DWI drivers who: i) by their arrest characteristics pose a greater risk for recidivism, which may require expeditious exposure to preventative countermeasures; and ii) as a function of their greater risk/needs, benefit from assignment to more intensive intervention to mitigate their recidivism risk.

Social Goal Orientation Differentially Influences Exposure to Interpersonal and Noninterpersonal Trauma

Emerging adults are at an increased risk for trauma exposure, both interpersonal and non-interpersonal, which often occurs within a social context. How an individual interacts with this context may heighten or buffer against their risk for trauma. Social goal orientation represents individual differences that characterize how an individual navigates their social environment. These orientations fall along the two interacting dimensions, Agency and Communion. In a community sample (N=274; 55% female, average age = 18.9) of young adults, we sought to examine the role that these two types of social goals, both uniquely and in interaction with one another, may play in interpersonal and non-interpersonal trauma risk. Because men and women are at differential risk for trauma, we also examined the impact of gender on these associations. Findings revealed that social goal orientations are linked to trauma exposure in ways that differ depending on the type of trauma, interpersonal or non-interpersonal. Moreover, these processes differed for men and women. Whereas a high Communal Orientation was associated with decreased exposure to all trauma, for both women and men, Agentic Orientation was associated with an increased number of interpersonal and non-interpersonal trauma. For men, agency and communion interacted, suggesting that the extent to which an agentic orientation may be risky or protective for interpersonal trauma depends strongly on communal orientation. These findings provided initial evidence for the role social goal orientation may play as a risk or protective factor for trauma exposure.

Intoxicated driving and riding with impaired drivers: Comparing days with alcohol, marijuana, and simultaneous use

BACKGROUND

Young adults who engage in simultaneous alcohol and marijuana (SAM) use may be more likely to engage in unsafe behaviors including riding with impaired drivers and driving after alcohol and/or marijuana use.

METHODS

Young adult SAM users (N = 408) self-reported their behavior for five 14-day bursts, yielding daily-level responses on a total of 14,675 substance use days. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) estimated the likelihood of riding with an impaired driver and of driving after use on SAM use days compared to alcohol- or marijuana-only use days.

RESULTS

More frequent SAM users were more likely to ride with an impaired driver and to drive after use than less frequent SAM users (between-persons). On SAM use days, there were greater odds of riding with an impaired driver, compared to alcohol-only days (AOR = 1.28) and marijuana-only days (AOR = 2.22), and of driving after use, compared to marijuana-only days (AOR = 1.25). Driving after use was more likely on days with non-simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use compared to SAM use (AOR = 1.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Riding with an impaired driver is common among young adult substance users, and more likely following simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana compared to other types of alcohol and marijuana use. Driving after use is more likely after SAM use than marijuana-only use days, but most likely on days when both alcohol and marijuana were used but not simultaneously. Future research on situation-level predictors of riding and driving-related risks among young adults is warranted.

Do Brief Alcohol Interventions Reduce Driving After Drinking Among College Students? A Two-step Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data

Aims

College students who drink are at an increased risk of driving after drinking and alcohol-involved traffic accidents and deaths. Furthermore, the persistence of driving after drinking over time underscores a need for effective interventions to prevent future drunk driving in adulthood. The present study examined whether brief alcohol interventions (BAIs) for college students reduce driving after drinking.

Methods

A two-step meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) was conducted using a combined sample of 6801 college students from 15 randomized controlled trials (38% male, 72% White and 58% first-year students). BAIs included individually delivered Motivational Interviewing with Personalized Feedback (MI + PF), Group Motivational Interviewing (GMI), and stand-alone Personalized Feedback (PF) interventions. Two outcome variables, driving after two+/three+ drinks and driving after four+/five+ drinks, were checked, harmonized and analyzed separately for each study and then combined for meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.

Results

BAIs lowered the risk of driving after four+/five+ drinks (19% difference in the odds of driving after drinking favoring BAIs vs. control), but not the risk of driving after two+/three+ drinks (9% difference). Subsequent subgroup analysis indicated that the MI + PF intervention was comparatively better than PF or GMI.

Conclusions

BAIs provide a harm reduction approach to college drinking. Hence, it is encouraging that BAIs reduce the risk of driving after heavy drinking among college students. However, there may be opportunities to enhance the intervention content and timing to be more relevant for driving after drinking and improve the outcome assessment and reporting to demonstrate its effect.

Comparative Effectiveness of Brief Alcohol Interventions for College Students: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis

Late adolescence is a time of increased drinking, and alcohol plays a predominant role in college social experiences. Colleges seeking to prevent students' hazardous drinking may elect to implement brief alcohol interventions (BAIs). However, numerous manualized BAIs exist, so an important question remains regarding the comparative effectiveness of these different types of BAIs for college students. This study uses network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare seven manualized BAIs for reducing problematic alcohol use among college students. We systematically searched multiple sources for literature, and we screened studies and extracted data in duplicate. For the quantitative synthesis, we employed a random-effects frequentist NMA to determine the effectiveness of different BAIs compared to controls and estimated the relative effectiveness ranking of each BAI. A systematic literature search resulted in 52 included studies: On average, 58% of participants were male, 75% were binge drinkers, and 20% were fraternity/sorority-affiliated students. Consistency models demonstrated that BASICS was consistently effective in reducing students' problematic alcohol use (ES range: g = - 0.23, 95%CI [- 0.36, - 0.16] to g = - 0.36, 95% CI [- 0.55, - 0.18]), but AlcoholEDU (g = - 0.13, 95%CI [- 0.22, - 0.04]), e-CHUG (g = - 0.35, 95%CI [- 0.45, - 0.05]), and THRIVE (g = - 0.47, 95%CI [- 0.60, - 0.33]) were also effective for some outcomes. Intervention rankings indicated that BASICS, THRIVE, and AlcoholEDU hold the most promise for future trials. Several BAIs appear effective for college students. BASICS was the most effective but is resource intensive and may be better suited for higher risk students; THRIVE and e-CHUG are less resource intensive and show promise for universal prevention efforts.

A Mobile Phone-Based Brief Intervention With Personalized Feedback and Text Messaging Is Associated With Reductions in Driving After Drinking Among College Drinkers

OBJECTIVE

Driving after drinking (DAD) among college students remains a significant public health concern and is perhaps the single riskiest drinking-related behavior. Counselor-delivered and web-based Brief Alcohol Interventions (BAIs) have been shown to reduce DAD among college students, but to date no study has evaluated the efficacy of a single-session mobile phone-based BAI specific to DAD. The present study examined whether a driving-specific BAI delivered via mobile phone would significantly decrease DAD among college students compared to an informational control.

METHOD

Participants were 84 college students (67.1% women; average age = 23; 52.4% White) who endorsed driving after drinking two or more drinks at least twice in the past 3 months. After completing baseline measures, participants were randomly assigned to receive either (a) DAD information or (b) DAD mobile BAI that included personalized feedback and interactive text messaging. Participants completed outcome measures at 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Repeated-measures mixed modeling analyses revealed that students receiving the mobile phone-based BAI reported significantly greater reductions in likelihood of DAD (three or more drinks) and the number of drinks consumed before driving than students in the information condition at 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide preliminary support for the short-term efficacy of a mobile phone-based BAI for reducing DAD among college students.

Brief Motivational Interventions Are Associated with Reductions in Alcohol-Induced Blackouts Among Heavy Drinking College Students

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-induced blackouts, a form of anterograde amnesia that restricts the encoding of short-term memories into long-term ones, are among the most severe alcohol-related consequences. College students are at high risk of experiencing alcohol-induced blackouts, and there is a need to determine whether alcohol interventions can effectively reduce blackouts in this population. The current study uses data from 3 randomized clinical trials to examine the effect of various intervention approaches on alcohol-induced blackouts.

METHODS

Four interventions were compared over 3 studies: (i) a computerized feedback intervention (electronic Check-Up To Go [e-Chug]; Study 1); (ii) a single-session brief motivational intervention (BMI; Study 1); (iii) a BMI plus behavioral economic session focused on increasing substance-free activities (BMI + Substance-Free Activity Session [SFAS]; Studies 2 and 3); and (iv) a BMI plus supplemental Relaxation Training session (BMI + Relaxation Training; Studies 2 and 3). Studies 1 and 3 also included an assessment-only control condition. For each study, participants reported whether they had experienced an alcohol-induced blackout at each time point; binary logistic regressions examined differential likelihood of experiencing an alcohol-induced blackout over time.

RESULTS

Neither the single-session BMI nor e-Chug reduced alcohol-induced blackouts over assessment only; however, participants in the BMI + SFAS or BMI + Relaxation Training condition were significantly less likely to experience an alcohol-induced blackout compared to assessment only at 1-month (Wald = 4.77, odds ratio [OR] = 0.53, p = 0.03) and 6-month follow-ups (Wald = 5.72, OR = 0.52, p = 0.02). Study 2 also revealed a larger effect for the BMI + SFAS over the BMI + Relaxation Training condition at 6 months (Wald = 4.11 OR = 0.22, p = 0.043), although this was not replicated in Study 3. The effects for the 2-session BMIs lasted 6 months, at which point maturation effects diminished differences between assessment-only and intervention conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Two sessions of BMI are a substantial enough dose to result in reductions in alcohol-induced blackouts among college student heavy drinkers.

Drinking-and-Driving-Related Cognitions Mediate the Relationship Between Alcohol Demand and Alcohol-Impaired Driving

OBJECTIVE

Elevated behavioral economic demand for alcohol has been shown to be associated with drinking and driving in college students. The present study sought to clarify the underlying mechanisms of this relationship by examining whether drinking-and-driving-related cognitions (e.g., attitudes, perceptions, and normative beliefs) mediate the association between alcohol demand and drinking and driving.

METHOD

A total of 134 young adult social drinkers completed an alcohol purchase task and measures of perceived dangerousness of drinking and driving, normative beliefs about drinking and driving, and perceived driving limit (i.e., perceived number of drinks one could consume and still drive safely). The frequency of drinking and driving in the past year was assessed via self-report.

RESULTS

Individuals who reported drinking and driving exhibited greater alcohol demand (intensity, Omax, and elasticity) compared with those who did not engage in drinking and driving. Increased demand was also correlated with more favorable drinking-and-driving cognitions. Indirect effects tests revealed that perceived driving limit partially mediated the relationship between alcohol demand and drinking-and-driving behavior, even after accounting for drinking level, sex, and delay discounting.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide further support for the utility of behavioral economic theory in understanding drinking-and-driving behavior. In particular, they provide evidence for one mechanism-drinking-and-driving-related cognitions-by which alcohol demand influences drinking and driving. Additional research using longitudinal and experimental designs is required to confirm this model and to identify other potential mediators.

Can progress in reducing alcohol-impaired driving fatalities be resumed? Results of a workshop sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation Committee (ANB50)

OBJECTIVE

Despite successes in the 1980s and early 1990s, progress in reducing impaired driving fatalities in the United States has stagnated in recent years. Since 1997, the percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes with illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels has remained at approximately 20 to 22%. Many experts believe that public complacency, competing social and public health issues, and the lack of political fortitude have all contributed to this stagnation. The number of alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities is still unacceptable, and most are preventable. The public needs to be aware that the problem presented by drinking drivers has not been solved. Political leaders need guidance on which measures will affect the problem, and stakeholders need to be motivated once again to implement effective strategies.

METHODS

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Transportation Research Board (TRB), Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation Committee (ANB50) sponsored a workshop held at the NAS facility in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on August 24-25, 2015, to discuss the lack of progress in reducing impaired driving and to make recommendations for future progress. A total of 26 experts in research and policy related to alcohol-impaired driving participated in the workshop. The workshop began by examining the static situation in the rate of alcohol-impaired driving fatal crashes to determine what factors may be inhibiting further progress. The workshop then discussed 8 effective strategies that have not been fully implemented in the United States. Workshop participants (16 of the 26) rated their top 3 strategies.

RESULTS

3 strategies received the most support: 1. Impose administrative sanctions for drivers with BACs = 0.05 to 0.08 g/dL. 2. Require alcohol ignition interlocks for all alcohol-impaired driving offenders. 3. Increase the frequency of sobriety checkpoints, including enacting legislation to allow them in the 11 states that currently prohibit them. 5 other important strategies included the following: (1) increase alcohol taxes to raise the price and reduce alcohol consumption; (2) reengage the public and raise the priority of impaired driving; (3) lower the illegal per se BAC limit to 0.05 for a criminal offense; (4) develop and implement in-vehicle alcohol detection systems; and (5) expand the use of screening and brief interventions in medical facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Each of these strategies is proven to be effective, yet all are substantially underutilized. Each is used in some jurisdictions in the United States or Canada, but none is used extensively. Any one of the 3 strategies implemented on a widespread basis would decrease impaired driving crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Based on the research, all 3 together would have a substantial impact on the problem.