Impact of legislation to reduce the drink-drive limit on road traffic accidents and alcohol consumption in Scotland: a natural experiment study

J. Lewsey, Houra Haghpanahan, D. Mackay, E. McIntosh, J. Pell, Andy P. Jones
{"title":"Impact of legislation to reduce the drink-drive limit on road traffic accidents and alcohol consumption in Scotland: a natural experiment study","authors":"J. Lewsey, Houra Haghpanahan, D. Mackay, E. McIntosh, J. Pell, Andy P. Jones","doi":"10.3310/PHR07120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n It is widely recognised that drink driving is a leading cause of road traffic accidents (RTAs). There is evidence that changing the drink-drive limit from a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05 g/dl is effective in reducing RTAs. Scotland changed the blood alcohol concentration limit to 0.05 g/dl on 5 December 2014.\n \n \n \n To assess whether or not the numbers and rates of RTAs and per capita alcohol consumption in Scotland were reduced because of the 2014 drink-drive legislation. To assess whether or not the 2014 change in legislation provided good value for money.\n \n \n \n A natural experimental, quantitative study. The control group was England and Wales, that is, the other countries in Great Britain, where the drink-drive legislation remained unchanged.\n \n \n \n Great Britain.\n \n \n \n The entire population of Scotland, England and Wales for the period of January 2013–December 2016.\n \n \n \n The change to drink-drive legislation in Scotland.\n \n \n \n The counts and rates of RTAs; and per capita alcohol consumption.\n \n \n \n For the numbers and rates of RTAs (both traffic flow and population denominators were used), and separately for the intervention and control trial groups, negative binomial regression models were fitted to panel data sets to test for a change in outcome level after the new 2014 legislation was in place. To obtain a ‘difference-in-differences’ (DiD)-type measure of effect, an interaction term between the intervention group indicator and the binary covariate for indicating pre and post change in legislation (‘pseudo’-change for the control group) was assessed. For off- and on-trade per capita alcohol sales, and separately for the intervention and control trial group, seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average error models were fitted to the relevant time series.\n \n \n \n The change to drink-drive legislation was associated with a 2% relative decrease in RTAs in Scotland [relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; p = 0.53]. However, the pseudo-change in legislation was associated with a 5% decrease in RTAs in England and Wales (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00; p = 0.05). For RTA rates, with traffic flow as the denominator, the DiD-type estimate indicated a 7% increase in rates for Scotland relative to England and Wales (unadjusted RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.17; p = 0.1). The change to drink-drive legislation was associated with a 0.3% relative decrease in per capita off-trade sales (–0.3%, 95% CI –1.7% to 1.1%; p = 0.71) and a 0.7% decrease in per capita on-trade sales (–0.7%, 95% CI –0.8% to –0.5%; p < 0.001).\n \n \n \n The change to drink-drive legislation in Scotland in December 2014 did not have the expected effect of reducing RTAs in the country, and nor did it change alcohol drinking levels in Scotland. This main finding for RTAs was unexpected and the research has shown that a lack of enforcement is the most likely reason for legislation failure.\n \n \n \n Investigations into how the public interpret and act on changes in drink-drive legislation would be welcome, as would research into whether or not previous change in drink-drive legislation effects on RTAs in other jurisdictions are associated with the level of enforcement that took place.\n \n \n \n Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38602189.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32306,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PHR07120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

It is widely recognised that drink driving is a leading cause of road traffic accidents (RTAs). There is evidence that changing the drink-drive limit from a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05 g/dl is effective in reducing RTAs. Scotland changed the blood alcohol concentration limit to 0.05 g/dl on 5 December 2014. To assess whether or not the numbers and rates of RTAs and per capita alcohol consumption in Scotland were reduced because of the 2014 drink-drive legislation. To assess whether or not the 2014 change in legislation provided good value for money. A natural experimental, quantitative study. The control group was England and Wales, that is, the other countries in Great Britain, where the drink-drive legislation remained unchanged. Great Britain. The entire population of Scotland, England and Wales for the period of January 2013–December 2016. The change to drink-drive legislation in Scotland. The counts and rates of RTAs; and per capita alcohol consumption. For the numbers and rates of RTAs (both traffic flow and population denominators were used), and separately for the intervention and control trial groups, negative binomial regression models were fitted to panel data sets to test for a change in outcome level after the new 2014 legislation was in place. To obtain a ‘difference-in-differences’ (DiD)-type measure of effect, an interaction term between the intervention group indicator and the binary covariate for indicating pre and post change in legislation (‘pseudo’-change for the control group) was assessed. For off- and on-trade per capita alcohol sales, and separately for the intervention and control trial group, seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average error models were fitted to the relevant time series. The change to drink-drive legislation was associated with a 2% relative decrease in RTAs in Scotland [relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; p = 0.53]. However, the pseudo-change in legislation was associated with a 5% decrease in RTAs in England and Wales (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00; p = 0.05). For RTA rates, with traffic flow as the denominator, the DiD-type estimate indicated a 7% increase in rates for Scotland relative to England and Wales (unadjusted RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.17; p = 0.1). The change to drink-drive legislation was associated with a 0.3% relative decrease in per capita off-trade sales (–0.3%, 95% CI –1.7% to 1.1%; p = 0.71) and a 0.7% decrease in per capita on-trade sales (–0.7%, 95% CI –0.8% to –0.5%; p < 0.001). The change to drink-drive legislation in Scotland in December 2014 did not have the expected effect of reducing RTAs in the country, and nor did it change alcohol drinking levels in Scotland. This main finding for RTAs was unexpected and the research has shown that a lack of enforcement is the most likely reason for legislation failure. Investigations into how the public interpret and act on changes in drink-drive legislation would be welcome, as would research into whether or not previous change in drink-drive legislation effects on RTAs in other jurisdictions are associated with the level of enforcement that took place. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38602189. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
立法降低酒驾限制对苏格兰道路交通事故和酒精消费的影响:一项自然实验研究
人们普遍认为,酒后驾驶是道路交通事故的主要原因。有证据表明,将酒后驾车限制从血液酒精浓度0.08改为0.05 g/dl在减少区域贸易协定方面是有效的。苏格兰将血液酒精浓度限制改为0.05 g/dl,2014年12月5日。评估区域贸易协定的数量和比率以及苏格兰的人均酒精消费量是否因2014年的酒后驾车立法而减少。评估2014年的立法变化是否物有所值。一种自然的实验性定量研究。对照组是英格兰和威尔士,也就是英国的其他国家,这些国家的酒后驾车立法保持不变。大不列颠。2013年1月至2016年12月期间苏格兰、英格兰和威尔士的全体人口。苏格兰酒后驾车立法的变化。区域贸易协定的数量和费率;以及人均饮酒量。对于RTA的数量和比率(使用了交通流量和人口分母),以及分别针对干预试验组和对照试验组,将负二项回归模型拟合到面板数据集,以测试2014年新立法实施后结果水平的变化。为了获得“差异中的差异”(DiD)类型的效果测量,评估了干预组指标和用于指示立法前后变化的二元协变量之间的交互项(对照组的“假设”变化)。对于非交易和交易中的人均酒精销售额,以及分别针对干预和对照试验组,将季节自回归综合移动平均误差模型拟合到相关的时间序列中。酒后驾车立法的变化与苏格兰RTA相对减少2%有关[相对风险(RR)0.98,95%CI 0.91至1.04;p = 0.53]。然而,立法的伪变化与英格兰和威尔士RTA减少5%有关(RR 0.95,95%CI 0.90至1.00;p = 0.05)。对于RTA费率,以交通流量为分母,DiD类型的估计表明,相对于英格兰和威尔士,苏格兰的费率增加了7%(未经调整的RR 1.07,95%CI 0.98至1.17;p = 0.1)。酒后驾车立法的变化与人均非贸易销售额相对下降0.3%有关(-0.3%,95%CI-1.7%至1.1%;p = 0.71)和人均贸易销售额下降0.7%(-0.7%,95%置信区间-0.8%至-0.5%;p < 0.001)。2014年12月,苏格兰对酒后驾车立法的修改并没有达到减少该国RTA的预期效果,也没有改变苏格兰的饮酒水平。区域贸易协定的这一主要发现出乎意料,研究表明,缺乏执法是立法失败的最可能原因。欢迎调查公众如何解释酒后驾车立法的变化并采取行动,也欢迎研究此前酒后驾车立法变化对其他司法管辖区区域贸易协定的影响是否与执法水平有关。当前对照试验ISRCTN38602189。该项目由国家卫生研究所公共卫生研究计划资助,并将在《公共卫生研究》上全文发表;第7卷第12期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
46 weeks
期刊最新文献
Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis of the Nose and Maxilla: A Rare Presentation. Behavioural intervention to reduce sexually transmitted infections in people aged 16–24 years in the UK: the safetxt RCT A group-based exercise and behavioural maintenance intervention for adults over 65 years with mobility limitations: the REACT RCT Feasibility of a theory-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour among contact centre staff: the SUH stepped-wedge cluster RCT A multicomponent structured health behaviour intervention to improve physical activity in long-distance HGV drivers: the SHIFT cluster RCT
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1