Search

Background/aim: Drug use and risky driving is associated with sensation seeking. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between use of psychoactive substances and levels of the sensation seeking personality trait as measured with the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale 4 among drivers in Norway.Method: A cross-sectional design was applied to estimate the association between psychoactive substance use and sensation seeking behavior. Drivers in normal traffic were included in two roadside surveys: one in the north (September 2014 - October 2015) and the other in the south-east of Norway (April 2016 - April 2017). Oral fluid was analyzed for alcohol and psychoactive drugs, and data on sex, age and time of participation were recorded. Participants filled in the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale 4 questionnaire.Results: A total of 8053 drivers were included, of which 32% were women and 62% were under 40 years. The prevalence of alcohol was 0.3%, stimulants 0.6%, tetrahydrocannabinol 1.4%, benzodiazepines and/or z-hypnotics 2.0% and polydrug use 0.6%. Associations were found between the use of tetrahydrocannabinol or benzodiazepines and/or z-hypnotics and a low score on the "thrill and adventure seeking" domain of the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale 4 (OR = 1.723, 95% C.I. = 1.001-2.966). Associations were also found between the use of stimulants and the highest scores on the "experience seeking" (OR = 2.085, 95% C.I. = 1.084-4.009) and "disinhibition" (OR = 4.791, 95% C.I. =1.748-13.135) domains of the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale 4. No associations were found between sensation seeking behavior and alcohol or polydrug use.Conclusion: A high degree of sensation seeking was found among drivers who had used stimulating drugs, in contrast to drives who had used tetrahydrocannabinol and benzodiazepines and/or z-hypnotics who showed a low degree of sensation seeking. The combination of sensation seeking behavior and the use of stimulants might lead to increased risky behavior and thus traffic crashes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The rate of deaths caused by road traffic crashes is particularly high in rural areas. It has been hypothesised that one factor that may contribute is differences in patterns of alcohol use. The aim was to compare the prevalence of psychoactive substances among crash-involved drivers arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) who are tested for alcohol and drugs and recent random drivers in a rural area. Furthermore, we investigated the association between traffic crashes and driving after using alcohol, illicit or medicinal drugs either alone or in combination., Methods: A case-control study was carried out in which the case group consisted of crash-involved drivers arrested for suspicion of DUI from 2000 to 2015. This group was compared with a control group of randomly selected drivers recruited to a roadside survey in normal traffic from 2014 to 2015. The case group consisted of 612 individuals (542 men and 70 women) and the control group of 3027 individuals (2099 men and 927 women). Drug and alcohol screening was performed on blood samples from the cases and samples of oral fluid from the controls., Results: The proportion of psychoactive substances was 81.7% among cases and 1.6% among the controls. The prevalence of combinations of psychoactive substances was 18% among the cases and 0.3% among the controls. The multivariate regression model analysis identified significant drug interactions., Conclusion: The prevalence of alcohol and drugs was high among the crash-involved drivers arrested for suspicion of DUI by the police. In contrast to earlier published research combinations of different psychoactive substances did not increase the OR for traffic crash involvement more than the single drug with highest OR. The statistical methodology presented in this study should be allied in future studies with greater statistical power to confirm these findings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)