Affiliation:
1. School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia
Abstract
The evidence for the effectiveness of alcohol interlock programs (AIP) was examined. Interest centred on understanding the individual impact of specific elements that can be incorporated within a program. The overall aim was to formulate the optimal design for an alcohol interlock program. An exploratory review of the literature was conducted to inform the development of a model AIP program. This model design can be used to inform the development of new AIP, guide evaluations of existing AIP, and suggest improvements to AIP. Four key metrics of the effectiveness of AIP were identified: offence recidivism, crashes, breath test violations, and program participation. Two factors have a positive impact on participation: reducing cost, and shorter suspension periods in exchange for participation in the program. There is significant evidence that alcohol interlocks reduce drink driving recidivism while installed, and some evidence that they reduce crashes. However, there was a reduction in impact once the device was removed from the vehicle, and recidivism may return to pre-instalment levels unless additional measures are included in the program. An education and treatment component appears to be important for reducing post-program recidivism. Key elements of this education and treatment component include a focus on separating drinking and driving, use of interlock data in counselling and therapy, and the ability to provide a range of therapeutic approaches that vary in intensity, and which can be escalated based on interlock performance data and guided by standardised alcohol assessment instruments.
Publisher
Australasian College of Road Safety
Reference41 articles.
1. Babor, T. F., & Higgins-Biddle, J. C. (2001). Brief Intervention for Hazardous and Harmful Drinking. A Manual for use in Primary Care. WHO/MSD/MSB/01.6b. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/67210/WHO_MSD_MSB_01.6b.pdf;jsessionid=88B6F74BFEA5BEE5FED7A58171FDC01E?sequence=1
2. Beck, K. H., Rauch, W. J., Baker, E. A., & Williams, A. F. (1999). Effects of ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses: a randomized trial in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 1696–1700. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.11.1696
3. Beirness, D. J., Marques, P. R., Voas, R. B., & Tippetts, A. S. (2003). The impact of mandatory versus voluntary participation in the Alberta ignition interlock program. Traffic Injury Prevention, 4(S1), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1538-950391915777
4. Carter, P. M., Flannagan, C. A. C., Bingham, C. R., Cunningham, R. M., & Rupp, J. D. (2015). Modeling the injury prevention impact of mandatory alcohol ignition interlock installation in all new US vehicles. American Journal of Public Health, 105(5), 1028–1035. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302445
5. DeYoung, D. J. (2002). An evaluation of the implementation of ignition interlock in California. Journal of Safety Research, 33(4), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4375(02)00049-x