Use of Alcohol Mixed with Energy Drinks Increases the Prevalence of Driving Violations among Brazilian Truck Drivers.
Saved in:
| Title: | Use of Alcohol Mixed with Energy Drinks Increases the Prevalence of Driving Violations among Brazilian Truck Drivers. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | de Oliveira, Lucio Garcia (AUTHOR), Eckschmidt, Frederico (AUTHOR), Leyton, Vilma (AUTHOR), de Carvalho, Heráclito Barbosa (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Substance Use & Misuse. 2020, Vol. 55 Issue 10, p1584-1593. 10p. 4 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Prevention of drunk driving, Prevention of drugged driving, Alcohol drinking, Drunk driving, Poisson distribution, Risk assessment, Drugged driving, Logistic regression analysis, Energy drinks, Disease prevalence |
| Geographic Terms: | Brazil |
| Abstract: | Background: The use of alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED) has been reported to be associated with a variety of unsafe driving practices. Truck drivers are vulnerable to driving violations, particularly because of their engagement in drug use. The use of AmED among these professionals remains unknown. Aim: To estimate the prevalence of AmED use and its association with driving violations among truck drivers. Methods: 684 drivers were recruited in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The use of drugs was reported. Drivers were split into three groups: (a) alcohol abstainers (AA); (b) alcohol-only users (AO); and (c) users of AmED. Intergroup comparisons were performed by polynomial logistic regression (the reference category was AO). We also performed Poisson regression analysis to obtain the prevalence ratio; the significance level was stipulated at 5%. Results: The prevalence of drivers reporting the use of AmED was 16.8%. Users of AmED (a) were younger, (b) were less experienced drivers, (c) had a heavier pattern of alcohol use, (d) used illicit drugs more frequently, and (e) had poorer sleep quality than AO subjects. A higher prevalence of drivers who had arguments or fights while driving (PR = 1.71) and of drivers who drove unbelted (PR = 1.66) ingested AmED than of AO subjects. Conclusions/importance: The use of AmED increased the prevalence of driving violations beyond the risks commonly attributed to alcohol use. We suggest additional investments in preventative measures based on the beverage category and a revision of the work organization of truck drivers to reduce their health and social risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Substance Use & Misuse is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: The use of alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED) has been reported to be associated with a variety of unsafe driving practices. Truck drivers are vulnerable to driving violations, particularly because of their engagement in drug use. The use of AmED among these professionals remains unknown. Aim: To estimate the prevalence of AmED use and its association with driving violations among truck drivers. Methods: 684 drivers were recruited in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The use of drugs was reported. Drivers were split into three groups: (a) alcohol abstainers (AA); (b) alcohol-only users (AO); and (c) users of AmED. Intergroup comparisons were performed by polynomial logistic regression (the reference category was AO). We also performed Poisson regression analysis to obtain the prevalence ratio; the significance level was stipulated at 5%. Results: The prevalence of drivers reporting the use of AmED was 16.8%. Users of AmED (a) were younger, (b) were less experienced drivers, (c) had a heavier pattern of alcohol use, (d) used illicit drugs more frequently, and (e) had poorer sleep quality than AO subjects. A higher prevalence of drivers who had arguments or fights while driving (PR = 1.71) and of drivers who drove unbelted (PR = 1.66) ingested AmED than of AO subjects. Conclusions/importance: The use of AmED increased the prevalence of driving violations beyond the risks commonly attributed to alcohol use. We suggest additional investments in preventative measures based on the beverage category and a revision of the work organization of truck drivers to reduce their health and social risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10826084 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10826084.2020.1750032 |
