DUI recidivism by intervention adherence: a multiple risk factor approach

Robertson, Angela; Gardner, Sheena; Walker, Courtney S.; Tatch, Andrew

doi:10.3109/00952990.2016.1167898

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to note that although age groups that started out with relatively more problematic characteristics generally evidenced more pre–post positive change, in many cases, they did not “catch up” to the other age groups. Given that younger adults are more likely to recidivate after a first DUI offense than older individuals (Impinen et al, ; Robertson, ), the results of this study suggest that providers of indicated prevention for harmful substance use in younger individuals may need to focus more attention on or develop novel strategies to enhance gains related to risk perception and intentions to engage in high‐risk behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Recidivists account for a large proportion of DUI arrests, with up to one third of those arrested for DUI being rearrested for the same offense (Impinen et al, ). Moreover, younger drivers are more likely to recidivate than older drivers (Impinen et al, ; Robertson, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, individuals in different age groups may respond differently to the same intervention strategy. For example, younger individuals may be less likely to adhere to an intervention following a first DUI offense (Robertson, ) and more likely to respond to motivational than traditional educational programs (Beadnell, Nason, Stafford, Rosengren, & Daugherty, ; Ouimet et al, ). In addition, the characteristics and needs of those arrested for DUI may differ by age.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison of Underage, Young, Middle, and Late Adults in Indicated Prevention Following Impaired Driving

Schumacher

Stafford

Beadnell³

et al. 2018

J Addict Offender Couns

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of Underage, Young, Middle, and Late Adults in Indicated Prevention Following Impaired Driving

Schumacher

Stafford

Beadnell³

et al. 2018

J Addict Offender Couns

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study by Robertson, Gardner, Walker and Tatch () revealed that people with a DUI who comply with program requirements are significantly less likely to reoffend within 3 years. This suggests that—in addition to a clear need for development and empirical evaluation of DUI educational programming to offer the field with guidance for best practices—both policy makers and developers of DUI education programs must better understand how to engage DUI offenders to increase compliance rates.…”

Section: Factors To Consider In Developing Dui Programmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The key goal of DUI educational programming is to prevent recidivism; therefore, understanding the characteristics of DUI recidivists will help to target curricular interventions. For example, men are significantly more likely to be repeat offenders than women (Robertson et al, ). Furthermore, compared with first‐time offenders, recidivists are more likely to be older, use drugs other than alcohol, and have psychiatric comorbidity (Nelson, Belkin, LaPlante, Bosworth, & Shaffer, ).…”

Section: Predictors Of Dui Recidivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding the Last Ride: Can DUI Programming Address Multiple Risk Factors to Reduce Recidivism?

Gibson

Woodford

Czeizinger

2018

J Addict Offender Couns

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Goel,

Tiwari,

Varghese

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRoad Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high‐income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence‐based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high‐income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.ObjectivesThe objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.Search MethodsThe EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.Selection CriteriaThe interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post‐crash pre‐hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non‐fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.Data Collection and AnalysisThe EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case‐control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.Main ResultsThe EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post‐crash pre‐hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non‐fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety‐six percent of the studies were reported from high‐income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper‐middle‐income countries, and only 1.4% from lower‐middle and low‐income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.Authors' ConclusionsThe EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence‐synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

show abstract

DUI recidivism by intervention adherence: a multiple risk factor approach

Cited by 13 publications

References 18 publications

A Comparison of Underage, Young, Middle, and Late Adults in Indicated Prevention Following Impaired Driving

A Comparison of Underage, Young, Middle, and Late Adults in Indicated Prevention Following Impaired Driving

Avoiding the Last Ride: Can DUI Programming Address Multiple Risk Factors to Reduce Recidivism?

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About