Eensoo Diva, Paaver Marika, Harro Jaanus
Department of Public Health, University of Tartu, Estonia Department of Psychology, University of Tartu, Estonia.
Ann Adv Automot Med. 2011;55:283-91.
Road traffic collisions caused by drunk driving pose a significant public health problem all over the world. Therefore additional preventive activities against drunk driving should be worked out. The aim of the study was to assess drunk driving in novice drivers after a psychological intervention taking into account also impulsivity, law obedience, and alcohol-related measures. An intervention study was started with 1889 car driver's license attempters during their driving school studies. Subjects were classified as intervention group (n=1083, mean age 23.1 (SD=7.4) years), control group (n=517, mean age 22.8 (SD=7.1) years) and "lost" group (n=289, mean age 23.0 (SD=6.9) years). "Lost" group subjects had been assigned into the intervention group, but they did not participate in the intervention. Subjects of the intervention group participated in a psychological intervention on the dangers of impulsive behavior in traffic. After a three year follow-up period it appeared that in the control group and in the lost group there was a significantly higher proportion of drunk drivers than in the intervention group, 3.3% (n=17), 3.5% (n=10) and 1.5% (n=10) (p=0.026), respectively. Survival analysis confirmed that psychological intervention had a significant impact on drunk driving (p=0.015), and the impact of the intervention was persistent also in the case of higher scores in Mild social deviance. In subjects with higher scores in impulsivity measures and alcohol-related problems the impact of short psychological intervention was not sufficient for preventing drunk driving. It can be concluded that psychological intervention used during the driving school studies is an effective primary prevention activity against drunk driving. However, for drivers with high scores in impulsivity measures and alcohol-related problems, the short psychological intervention is not sufficient in reducing drunk driving behavior.
酒后驾驶导致的道路交通事故在全球构成了重大的公共卫生问题。因此，应制定更多针对酒后驾驶的预防措施。本研究的目的是评估心理干预后新手驾驶员的酒后驾驶情况，同时考虑冲动性、守法情况以及与酒精相关的指标。一项干预研究在1889名正在驾校学习的汽车驾照申请者中展开。受试者被分为干预组（n = 1083，平均年龄23.1（标准差 = 7.4）岁）、对照组（n = 517，平均年龄22.8（标准差 = 7.1）岁）和“失访”组（n = 289，平均年龄23.0（标准差 = 6.9）岁）。“失访”组的受试者本应被分配到干预组，但他们未参与干预。干预组的受试者参与了一项关于交通中冲动行为危险性的心理干预。经过三年的随访期，结果显示对照组和失访组中酒后驾驶者的比例显著高于干预组，分别为3.3%（n = 17）、3.5%（n = 10）和1.5%（n = 10）（p = 0.026）。生存分析证实心理干预对酒后驾驶有显著影响（p = 0.015），而且在轻度社会偏差得分较高的情况下，干预的影响也是持续的。在冲动性指标和与酒精相关问题得分较高的受试者中，短期心理干预不足以预防酒后驾驶。可以得出结论，在驾校学习期间进行的心理干预是预防酒后驾驶的一项有效的初级预防措施。然而，对于冲动性指标和与酒精相关问题得分较高的驾驶员来说，短期心理干预在减少酒后驾驶行为方面并不充分。
