Drug driving: a secondary analysis of factors associated with driving under the influence of cannabis in Jamaica.

OBJECTIVES: To determine cannabis use patterns, the predictive sociodemographic correlates of driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) and the association between risk perception and cannabis dependence among vehicle drivers in Jamaica. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis. SETTING: Used the Jamaica National Drug Prevalence Survey 2016 dataset. PARTICIPANTS: 1060 vehicle drivers extracted from the population sample of 4623. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis used Pearson's χ2 test and logistic regression. ORs and 95% CIs were recorded. A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: More than 10% of Jamaican drivers admitted to DUIC in the past year. Approximately 43.3% of drivers who currently use cannabis reported DUIC only. Evidently, 86.8% of drivers who DUIC were heavy cannabis users. Approximately 30% of drivers with moderate to high-risk perception of smoking cannabis sometimes or often were dependent on cannabis. Notwithstanding, drivers with no to low-risk perception of smoking cannabis sometimes or often were significantly likelier to be dependent (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Logistic regression highlighted male drivers (OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.59 to 14.20, p=0.009) that were 34 years and under (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.29, p<0.001) and were the head of the household (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.75, p=0.031) and operated a machine as part of their job (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.24, p=0.023) were more likely to DUIC, while those who were married (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.74, p=0.004) and had achieved a tertiary-level education (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76, p=0.031) were less likely. CONCLUSIONS: Two in five Jamaican drivers, who currently smoke cannabis, drive under its influence, with over 85% engaging in heavy use. Public health implications necessitate policy-makers consider mobile roadside drug testing and amending drug-driving laws to meet international standards.

Drunk driving: a secondary analysis of factors associated with driving under the influence of alcohol in Jamaica.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of alcohol use patterns, sociodemographic factors and risk of alcohol dependence among vehicle drivers in Jamaica. DESIGN: A secondary data analysis. SETTING: This study was conducted using the Jamaica National Drug Prevalence Survey 2016 dataset. PARTICIPANTS: This included 1060 vehicle drivers derived from the population sample of 4623. The participants from each household were randomly selected as the respondent for the survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Alcohol use and dependence were measured using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test questionnaire. Driving under the influence of alcohol (DUIA) was assessed by questions regarding its use in the past 12 months. The analysis involved the use of Pearson's χ2 test and logistic regression. RESULTS: 75% of Jamaicans reported lifetime alcohol use. Approximately 65% of drivers indicated that they currently drink alcohol. 18% of drivers who currently drink alcohol admitted to DUIA. Reportedly, 54.5% of these drivers were alcohol binge drinkers, with 41.5% also driving under the influence of cannabis. The bivariate analysis demonstrated that DUIA was higher among Christian participants and those who worked in non-machine operator jobs (p=0.002 and p=0.008, respectively). Vehicle drivers altogether and drivers who drive under the influence of alcohol had significant associations with hazardous drinking (p=0.011 and p<0.001, respectively). Logistic regressions highlighted drivers 34 years and under (p=0.012), male drivers (p=0.002) and the head of the household (p=0.050) were 1.82, 3.30 and 1.86 times more likely, respectively, to report driving under the influence of alcohol in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of alcohol use among Jamaica's population and vehicle drivers is high. That one in five drivers, who currently consume alcohol, also admits to driving under the influence suggests the urgent need for mitigation strategies and legislative action as part of a preventative effort to reduce drunk driving.