Guide to community preventive servicesEffectiveness of Multicomponent Programs with Community Mobilization for Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Introduction
Alcohol-impaired driving continues to be a major public health problem in the U.S. In 2007, there were 12,998 people who died in crashes in which at least one driver had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.08 grams per deciliter (g/dL), the level at which adult drivers in the U.S. are legally drunk.1 The estimated economic cost of alcohol-related crashes in 2000 was $51 billion,2 or approximately $64 billion in 2008 dollars based on the annual average Consumer Price Index.a
Attempts to address alcohol-impaired driving through law enforcement date back to New York's impaired driving law of 1910.3 More than 50 years later, the National Highway Safety Bureau's 1968 Report to the Congress on Alcohol and Highway Safety stimulated official and public concern regarding alcohol-impaired driving.3, 4 Since then, individual states and communities have implemented a broad range of strategies to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. Other systematic reviews in this series have summarized the effectiveness of some of the common single-component interventions, including various laws,5, 6 sobriety checkpoints,5, 6, 7 mass media campaigns,8 designated driver programs,9 and school-based programs.10 In practice, individual interventions are combined to form multicomponent programs.
Among the earliest multicomponent community-based programs to address alcohol-impaired driving were the Alcohol Safety Action Projects (ASAPs), funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and conducted from 1969 through 1975. These programs were based on a “systems approach,” later called a “health–legal” approach that focused on health-related interventions, such as alcohol-problem screening and referral to treatment, on the one hand, and on legal interventions, such as legislation, enforcement, adjudication, and penalties, on the other. Each of these programs also had a public information and education component made up primarily of public service media campaigns, speakers bureaus, local education programs, and other informational activities. Approximately $84 million was expended over a period of 5–6 years on 35 individual ASAPs. Evaluation results reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicated that about one third of these projects (12 of 35) resulted in significant reductions in nighttime fatal crashes, compared with zero in matched comparison sites.11
Although all of the ASAPs involved multiple community agencies and organizations, and several were implemented at the community (county) level, they did not specifically focus on community mobilization to implement and sustain the programs. A multicomponent program was defined for this review as one that implemented interventions, policies in multiple settings (e.g., responsible beverage service in bars and sobriety checkpoints), or both to alter the community environment to directly or indirectly reduce alcohol-impaired driving. Programs satisfied the community mobilization criterion if a community coalition or task force was actively involved in making decisions about the type of interventions implemented or methods for implementation and the group remained engaged in the program throughout the period of implementation. The multicomponent programs included in this systematic review are summarized below.
In 1984, planning began for a multicomponent program to be implemented by the Rhode Island Department of Health, with funding from the CDC and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). The Rhode Island Community Alcohol Abuse and Injury Prevention Project introduced an approach referred to as the “gatekeeper model,” which targeted key individuals who influence community drinking practices (e.g., alcohol servers and enforcement agencies) rather than targeting drinkers themselves. This was also one of the first documented programs designed to mobilize broad community support for actions by these gatekeepers to reduce alcohol-related injuries and deaths.12
Then, in the late 1980s, the Massachusetts Saving Lives Program was implemented as a multicomponent effort, addressing traffic safety issues including impaired driving, speeding, and pedestrian injuries in six moderate-size communities. These programs were designed more specifically to organize city departments and private citizens to address the impaired driving issue.13
At the same time, the IOM recommended the implementation of such multicomponent community efforts to address the more general problems posed by alcohol use and abuse.14 Following that recommendation, several large-scale, multicomponent community-based programs were implemented. From 1992 through 1996, for example, the Community Trials Project was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention (CSAP) and NIAAA and implemented in three communities in northern California, southern California, and South Carolina. In addition to community mobilization activities, the project sought to reduce rates of alcohol-related injuries by means of interventions involving enforcement of drinking and driving laws, publicity, responsible alcohol beverage service, and reducing access to alcohol. These interventions were implemented in stages, forming intervention “pulses.”15
Also in 1992, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) funded a large-scale, multimillion-dollar community intervention program to reduce substance abuse problems in 14 communities across the U.S. Five of these 14 communities implemented interventions that focused on reducing alcohol availability, particularly among youth, as well as on expanding treatment and referral activities. This program, called Fighting Back, began with 2-year community planning efforts through which local task forces developed multicomponent interventions involving combinations of publicity, referral, treatment, and aftercare; efforts to reduce access to alcohol; responsible alcohol service; “sting” operations at alcohol retail stores to reduce underage purchases; and reduced marketing of alcohol. One community also included enhanced enforcement of drinking and driving laws.16
In 1993, another large, community-based program was funded by the CSAP and NIAAA. The Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) program focused on community organizing to change policies and practices to reduce youth access in seven Minnesota and Wisconsin communities. Interventions included enforcement to reduce underage purchasing of alcohol, publicity, and reduced access to alcohol via efforts to change alcohol service practices and community norms.17
In 1997, with funding from the NIAAA and RWJF, the Operation Safe Crossing program was implemented in San Diego (CA) County to reduce the number of young people crossing the U.S. border to drink in Tijuana, Mexico, then driving to destinations in and around San Diego on their return. It focused extensively on community mobilization, strong media advocacy, and publicized driving-under-the-influence law enforcement efforts to meet its objectives.18
These six community-based programs provided the research base for examining the potential for multicomponent programs with community mobilization to reduce alcohol-impaired driving and associated crashes and injuries.
This systematic review was conducted on behalf of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (Task Force) for inclusion in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide, www.thecommunityguide.org). The general methods used to conduct systematic reviews and economic evaluations for the Community Guide have been described in detail elsewhere.19, 20
An economic evaluation is conducted only if the systematic review indicates that a strategy is effective according to Community Guide rules of evidence, and economic data are available. Economic evaluations use the societal perspective, which considers all costs and benefits, regardless of who bears the costs or receives the benefits.19
To be included in this review, a study had to (1) be primary research published in a peer-reviewed journal, technical report, or government report; (2) be published in English between January 1, 1980, and June 30, 2005; (3) meet minimum Community Guide quality criteria for study design and execution19; and (4) evaluate the effects of a multicomponent program with community mobilization to reduce alcohol-related crashes.
“Community mobilization” or “community organization” has been broadly defined as the organization and activation of a community to address local problems.21 The concept has been defined as “a planned process to activate a community to use its own social structures and any available resources to accomplish community goals that are decided on primarily by community representatives and that are generally consistent with local values.”22 The community mobilization model, which emphasizes community-level actions over individual behavior change strategies,23, 24 is well suited to addressing alcohol misuse for at least two reasons. First, communities exert some local control over the sale and public consumption of alcohol through enacting and enforcing local ordinances, and second, many of the costs associated with alcohol misuse are borne not only by the individual drinker but also by other members of the community, for example, through motor vehicle crashes and alcohol-related violence.25
Section snippets
Conceptual Model
The figure below shows the conceptual model that guided the review. The model reflects that community mobilization efforts can facilitate changes in alcohol-impaired driving through both direct and indirect pathways. For example, policy and environmental changes implemented in these programs can either directly target alcohol-impaired driving, usually by increasing the perceived risk of arrest for alcohol-impaired driving, or they can focus on reducing high-risk alcohol consumption, thereby
Evidence Synthesis
Six studies were identified that evaluated changes in alcohol-related crashes following implementation of a multicomponent program with community mobilization.12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 All six of these programs were conducted in the U.S. between 1988 and 2001. They addressed a variety of outcomes in addition to alcohol-impaired driving, including underage drinking, other risky driving behaviors such as speeding, disorderly conduct, alcohol-related injuries and violence, access to alcohol
Discussion
The studies reviewed here indicate that carefully planned, well-executed multicomponent programs with community mobilization can reduce alcohol-related crashes. They also suggest that such programs produce cost savings.
None of the studies provided unequivocal evidence that a given program reduced alcohol-related crashes; there is consistent evidence, however, of an impact across the body of evidence reviewed. This pattern is unlikely to be an artifact of methodologic flaws within the studies
Conclusion
The community-based programs evaluated in this review tended to be well-funded, multiyear efforts with outside technical assistance and evaluators. Additionally, each of the programs implemented at least some individual interventions with proven effectiveness. These characteristics probably maximized their effectiveness. Because these programs represent a highly select sample of multicomponent community-based programs addressing alcohol problems and alcohol-related driving injuries and deaths,
References (45)
- et al.
Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes
Am J Prev Med
(2004) - et al.
Effectiveness of designated driver programs for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes: a systematic review
Am J Prev Med
(2005) - et al.
Effectiveness of school-based health promotion programs for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes: a systematic review
Am J Prev Med
(2005) - et al.
Methods for conducting systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness and economic efficiency of interventions to reduce injuries to motor vehicle occupants
Am J Prev Med
(2001) - et al.
Community mobilization and its application to youth violence prevention
Am J Prev Med
(2008) Community prevention of alcohol problems
Addict Behav
(2000)- et al.
Fighting back against substance abuse: are community coalitions winning?
Am J Prev Med
(2002) Traffic safety facts, research note2007 Traffic safety annual assessment—alcohol-related fatalities
(2008)- et al.
The economic impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2000
(2002) - et al.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD): the first 25 years
Traffic Inj Prev
(2006)
Alcohol and Highway SafetyReport to the U.S. Congress 1968
Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving
Am J Prev Med
Motor vehicle occupant injury
Effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints for reducing alcohol-involved crashes
Traffic Inj Prev
Final report of the Rhode Island Community Alcohol Abuse and Injury Prevention Project: Volume I, technical report
Reducing alcohol-impaired driving in Massachusetts: the Saving Lives Program
Am J Public Health
Prevention and treatment of alcohol problems: research opportunities
Effect of community-based interventions on high-risk drinking and alcohol-related injuries
JAMA
Effects on alcohol related fatal crashes of a community based initiative to increase substance abuse treatment and reduce alcohol availability
Inj Prev
Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA): effects of a randomized trial on arrests and traffic crashes
Addiction
Operation Safe Crossing: using science within a community intervention
Addiction
Cited by (66)
Subsequent risky driving behaviors, recidivism and crashes among drivers with a traffic violation: A scoping review
2023, Accident Analysis and PreventionAlcohol-impaired driving enforcement priorities and strategies in a nationwide sample of U.S. law enforcement agencies
2023, Traffic Injury PreventionEducation is not a panacea for reducing human–black bear conflicts
2018, Ecological ModellingCommunity Organizing for Healthier Communities: Environmental and Policy Outcomes of a National Initiative
2016, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :This structural health promotion approach follows emerging evidence that health is a community responsibility—versus solely an individual choice50–52—that is influenced by people’s social and built environments.53 Furthermore, it builds upon successful community-based health promotion54 that engaged community stakeholders in environmental and policy change to reduce alcohol-related harms,55–58 skin cancer risk from sun exposure,59 tobacco use,60–62 physical inactivity,63,64 and childhood obesity.26,65,66 Unfortunately, minimal data exist documenting the effectiveness of community organizing–based interventions—which are fully designed and led by community stakeholders, whereas community-based interventions, like those described above, are primarily designed and directed by health professionals or academics54,67,68 who involve stakeholders as advisors or staff—in changing health-depriving structural inequities within communities of color.67,69
Drugs, Illicit - Primary Prevention Strategies
2016, International Encyclopedia of Public HealthBenefits of short educational programmes in preventing drink-driving recidivism: A ten-year follow-up randomised controlled trial
2016, International Journal of Drug PolicyCitation Excerpt :Community interventions were able to reduce, by 51%, the number of self-reported DUI offences in California and South Carolina, with numbers falling from 77% to 38% (Holder et al., 2000); but a similar intervention had no effect (RR = 1.00) on traffic accidents in Australia (Shakeshaft et al., 2014). Finally, multicomponent programmes have been shown to achieve between a 9% and a 42% reduction in accidents (Shults et al., 2009), but require more resources. In terms of costs, reducing the length of lecture series from one day to two hours has major advantages.