Effectiveness of contingency management using transdermal alcohol monitoring to reduce heavy drinking among driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrestees: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundDriving while intoxicated (DWI) is a serious public health problem. However, treatment for DWI arrestees is not readily available. This study examines the effectiveness of a contingency management (CM) procedure using transdermal alcohol concentration (TAC) monitoring to reduce drinking among DWI arrestees.MethodThe study participants were 216 DWI arrestees under pretrial and included both Mandated participants undergoing court‐ordered TAC monitoring and Non‐Mandated participants wearing a study‐provided TAC monitor. Participants were randomly assigned to either a CM (Mandated = 35; Non‐Mandated = 74) or a Control condition (Mandated = 37; Non‐Mandated = 70) and completed the 8‐week intervention. CM participants received $50/week for not exceeding a TAC of 0.02 g/dL during the previous week. Payments to Controls were yoked to the CM group.ResultsAmong Non‐Mandated participants, the probability of meeting the contingency was higher and remained stable (about 65%) over time in the CM group, whereas the probability was lower and declined in the Control group, widening the gaps in the probability between the study conditions (16.7%–24.1% greater in the CM group from visit 4 to 8, all p < 0.05). Among Mandated participants, the probability was not significantly different between conditions (p = 0.06–0.95). Furthermore, among Non‐Mandated participants, the percentage of heavy drinking days remained low (9.16%–11.37%) in the CM group, whereas it was greater and increased over time (17.43%–26.59%) in the Control group. In Mandated participants, no significant differences in percent heavy drinking days were observed between conditions (p = 0.07–0.10).ConclusionWe found that contingency effects on alcohol use are more pronounced among frequent and heavy alcohol users, i.e., Non‐Mandated DWI arrestees. However, for individuals whose drinking was already suppressed by existing contingencies (i.e., court‐mandated TAC monitoring), our CM procedure did not produce additional reductions in drinking.