Objective: The objective of this study was to provide additional evidence that posture control is negatively affected at BACs greater than 0.06 g/dL or breath alcohol concentrations (BrACs) of 0.06 g/210 L.
Method: This was a between-subjects study, with BrAC group as the independent variable (5 levels: 0.00, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, and 0.10 g/210 L); 4 measures of postural control as the dependent variables; and age, height, and weight as the covariates. Posture control was measured with a force-sensing platform connected to a computer. The feet's center of pressure (CoP) on the platform was recorded and the corresponding movement of the body in the anterior–posterior and lateral planes was derived. Participants (N = 96) were randomly assigned to one of the BrAC groups. Positive BrAC groups were compared to the zero BrAC group. Data were examined with hierarchical multiple regression.
Results: Adjusted for age, height, and weight, the main effect of lateral CoP with eyes open was not statistically significant. There was a statistically significant main effect of alcohol on anterior–posterior CoP excursion with eyes open and with eyes closed and lateral CoP excursion with eyes closed. For all 3 of those variables, only BrACs of 0.08 and 0.10 g/210 L produced differences against zero BrAC. Although the main effect of alcohol on Lateral CoP Excursion with eyes open was not statistically significant, the contrasts between 0 and 0.08 and 0 and 0.10 g/210L BrAC were in the hypothesized direction.
Conclusion: The current study did not directly address the issue of whether the sobriety tests are sensitive to BrACs of 0.05 g/210 L or above; rather, it provides additional evidence that postural control, one of the components of those tests, is relatively unaffected by BrACs lower than 0.08 g/210 L. Additional research is needed on the diagnostic characteristics of the sobriety tests at BrACs lower than 0.08 g/210 L. 相似文献
Methods: In order to inform expectations about intervention intensity, this article describes the AUDIT scores from 982 adults recently arrested for alcohol-impaired driving. The distribution of scores is extrapolated to state rates for individuals arrested for alcohol-impaired driving by intervention level.
Results: Though alcohol education was the most common intervention category, about one quarter of the sample scored in a range corresponding with the more intensive interventions using the brief counseling, continued monitoring for ongoing alcohol use, and/or referral to specialist for diagnostic evaluation and treatment.
Conclusions: This article provides local distribution of AUDIT scores and state estimates for the number of individuals scoring in each level of risk (AUDIT risk zone) and corresponding intervention type. Routine criminal justice practice is well positioned to deliver alcohol screening, education, simple advice, and continued alcohol monitoring, making delivery of SBIRT feasible for the majority of alcohol-impaired drivers. Challenges to implementing the full range of SBIRT services include resource demands of brief counseling, identifying the appropriate providers within a criminal justice context, and availability of community providers for referral to diagnostic and specialty care. Solutions may vary by state due to differences in population density and incidence rates of alcohol-impaired driving. 相似文献
Methods: Twenty-two healthy males (age: 23 ± 3 years, mean ± SD) participated in a placebo-controlled crossover design study involving 4 experimental trials. In each trial, participants completed a baseline level simulated driving task followed by an experimental driving task, involving one of 4 treatments: (1) a dose of alcohol designed to elicit 0.080% breath alcohol concentration (BrAC; AB), (2) an alcohol placebo beverage (PB), (3) FVG (estimated % blood alcohol concentration [BAC] 0.070–0.100+), and (4) placebo goggles (PGs). The driving tasks included 3 separate scenarios lasting ~5 min each; these were a simple driving scenario, a complex driving scenario, and a hazard perception driving scenario. Selected lateral control parameters (standard deviation of lane position [SDLP]; total number of lane crossings [LCs]) and longitudinal control parameters (average speed; standard deviation of speed [SDSP]; distance headway; minimum distance headway) were monitored during the simple and complex driving scenarios. Latency to 2 different stimuli (choice reaction time [CRT]) was tested in the hazard perception driving scenario. Subjective ratings of mood and attitudes toward driving were also provided during each of the trials.
Results: Neither placebo treatment influenced simulated driving performance. Mean BrAC was 0.060 ± 0.010% at the time of driving on the AB trial. Lateral control: In the simple driving scenario, SDLP and LC were not affected under any of the experimental treatments. However, in the complex driving scenario, significantly greater SDLP was observed on both the FVG and AB trials compared to their respective baseline drives. LC increased significantly from baseline on the AB trial only. Longitudinal control: Speed was not affected by any of the experimental treatments; however, SDSP increased significantly from baseline on the FVG trial. A significant reduction in distance headway and minimum distance headway was detected on the FVG trial compared to baseline. Hazard perception: Neither AB nor FVG trials were influential on CRT. Subjective mood ratings were significantly altered on the AB and FVG trials compared to baseline and placebo conditions. Participants reported reduced willingness and ability to drive under the active treatments (AB and FVG) than the placebo treatments (PB and PG).
Conclusions: FVGs may have some utility in replicating alcohol-related impairment on specific driving performance measurements. Hence, the equipment may offer an alternative approach to researching the impact of alcohol intoxication on simulated driving performance among populations where the provision of alcohol would otherwise be unethical (e.g., prelicensed drivers). 相似文献