The new app works from a smartphone allowing iPhone users to have easy access wherever they may be. According to a recent Yahoo article, intoxicheck will give drinkers a reality check on how much they’ve really consumed by performing a series of judgment, memory and reaction challenges before drinking to establish a sober baseline performance.

Innocorp hopes the app will lead people choose a designated driver or even take a taxi instead of making a poor choice and driving while under the influence. The app compares the results taken before and after drinking and will be valuable in helping those who drink to make the best choice based on their impairment level.

With the help of intoxicheck, it is not necessary to keep track of your alcohol consumption or try to estimate the alcohol content of each drink since the app does the work for you. A spokesperson for the company said the new iPhone app did provide a reasonable and accurate assessment regarding impairment levels.

Law enforcement, military safety officials and other highway safety personnel have been using Innocorp products since their first Fatal Vision goggles came out to view impairment and to also be used on campuses and universities for alcohol prevention programs.

New Year’s Eve plans are associated with celebration, but for young drivers, it is also often a time for tragic decisions to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A 2011 study commissioned by Liberty Mutual Insurance and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) sought to understand the decisions made by teens on the holiday.

The study’s results showed that teens perceive New Year’s Eve as the most dangerous night of the year to drive. However, the respondents also indicated that the holiday is also the time when teens most often drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The study involved approximately 2,300 juniors and seniors in high school. The researchers asked the teens to report on danger levels for certain events and how likely teens are to drive at those times. One of the events examined in the analysis was New Year’s Eve, which ranked first on both measures.

The study also had good news for teens and their parents. When asked if they would stop driving due to alcohol consumption if asked by their passenger, 94 percent of respondents said that they would respect the request and hand over their keys. When it came to driving after using marijuana, 90 percent said they would not drive if their passenger asked them.

The results showed that teens were more likely to ask their driver to reconsider if the driver was under the influence of alcohol, when compared to drivers under the influence of marijuana. In addition, the study found that females were more likely than males to speak up against either driving following alcohol use or marijuana use.

SADD Senior Advisor for Policy, Research and Education, Stephen Wallace, explains that the information gathered by the study needs to be communicated often to teens. Teens need to know that if they have concerns about their friends’ decision to drive, they need to express them. It’s likely that their action will be effective.

Liberty Mutual also encourages parents to get involved with their teen in planning how they will handle such situations. Parents who discuss clear rules with their child about alcohol consumption and how to handle a scenario in which a driver is making a poor decision to operate a vehicle tend to be effective.

State ranks were chosen by using specific criteria to judge whether they were successful in eliminating drunk driving in their state. States scored the highest that required ignition interlocks be installed for convicted dui drivers, revoked licenses for driving while intoxicated, conducted periodic sobriety check-points, participated in "no-refusal" challenges to determine whether someone was driving while intoxicated, and administered greater penalties to the drunk driver if a child was traveling in their vehicle with them.

MADD President, Jan Withers, sees progress from the reports but also sees that, across the nation, there is still much education and penalization that needs to be done. The U.S. Department of Transportation teams up with MADD in the fight against drunk driving. Ray LaHood, of the Transportation Department reports that drivers are killed more often on America’s roads by a drunk driver than by any other cause. Approximately 11,000 people are killed by drunk drivers each year.

Drunk driving is not only costly by taking so many lives, but it also costs Americans billions of dollars each year. According to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), the costs of those driving drunk are more than $132 billion a year. Almost half of the costs are monetary, while the rest are related to quality-of-life issues from those whose lives will never be the same after being hit by a drunk driver. The money trickles down from the $4.5 billion that federal governments pay, to the $3.2 billion that local and state governments pay, and to the $10.7 billion that employers pay for accidents that happen in work vehicles and for the employee’s insurance.

MADD is encouraged with the upward strides in their Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. Statistics showed that more states are using sobriety checkpoints to stop drunk drivers in their tracks. They are gaining more support for drunken driving awareness campaigns nationwide. Since their campaign began in 2006, the use of ignition interlocks has more than doubled. And, their DADSS, or Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program is working on an eight-to-ten-year plan to deliver a program for vehicles that would disable the vehicle if a person with a .08 blood alcohol concentration strength, or more tried to drive it. The national report gives MADD, and all drivers, hope-a look on the bright side of the road.

The SCRAM bracelet or Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor is a device that is worn around the ankle. It has been carefully designed to monitor those who choose to drink and drive while they are under a judge’s orders not to do so. The bracelet measures alcohol quantity in a qualitative manner and is able to send reports on those measurements to authorities.

Approximately 1 percent of all alcohol that is consumed will release from the body through sweat and perspiration. By detecting ethanol that is produced in sweat, the bracelet can detect the amount of alcohol the person has drunk. The bracelets are also set up to monitor alcohols that may be irrelevant, such as methyl, isopropyl or acetaldehydes. It shows if the individual consumed small, medium or large amounts of alcohol.

But how does the SCRAM bracelet alert the authorities? The bracelet works wirelessly with a modem that is located in the home of the monitored person. Every day the offender must place themselves within 30 feet of the modem so the information is transferred from the bracelet to those monitoring the bracelet. If the person fails to do this, they could be taken back into custody, as it would be considered a breach of contract.

The bracelet is made so that once it is placed on the ankle of the offender, there is no way to take the bracelet off. If it is tampered with or even slides up and down the ankle, an infrared sensor can immediately alert the authorities.

While the SCRAM bracelet may seem like a great idea, it is important to note that there can be a problem with the accuracy of its reports. Since the bracelet only has to sync with the modem once a day, there is a chance the offender could work around the schedule. As the SCRAM bracelet is introduced across the country, more research will be needed to determine its effectiveness in reducing the number of drunk driving incidences.

A 2008 study examined the co-occurrence of other disorders in repeat DUI offenders (McMillan et al., 2008). The researchers recruited 233 individuals required to seek mandatory treatment for alcohol disorders at one of seven licensed treatment programs. All of the participants were repeat DUI offenders.

The participants were assessed using a combination of measurement tools, including the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), which tests for a number of mental health disorders, and the Treatment Abstraction Form, which consists of data obtained from treatment charts of DUI offenders required to attend mandatory alcohol treatment. The treatment charts include information about other types of substance use and records of any psychiatric diagnoses made during treatment.

The analysis revealed that 68.4 percent of participants who had depression, 100 percent of those who had obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 92.9 percent of those who had bipolar disorder were not diagnosed for these disorders while undergoing treatment for alcohol-related problems.

The findings are limited due to several circumstances. The CIDI is considered to be a reliable measurement tool for identifying mental health disorders when used for a general population. Its use among repeat DUI offenders, however, has not been validated. In addition, the CIDI was used before the individuals were admitted for treatment and did not include observations and assessments made during alcohol treatment.

The use of the CIDI may not be valid for this particular study because it may be that the records for each patient were not maintained at a level necessary to accurately record the diagnoses by doctors. The diagnosis may have been correct at the time, but not recorded properly.

The study’s findings reveal a significant gap in diagnosing mental health disorders among those who have repeat DUI offenses. While there is often a screening conducted for other types of substance abuse when an individual has a record of DUI offenses, it may be equally important to assess the possible impact of other mental disorders.

The absence of evaluation for other mental disorders may prevent the identification of a problem that contributes to relapse. In order to help these individuals avoid future problems with driving under the influence and protect the safety of the general population, it is important to evaluate repeat offenders for possible co-morbidity.

The article, referenced in The Chart by CNN Health, said these episodes hit a high in 2006 and then decreased by nearly one-third through 2010. Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, CDC Director, stated that these drivers put everyone at risk on the road and that almost 11,000 individuals are killed each year in car crashes involving alcohol.

Episodes were defined as drivers with blood alcohol content of a minimum 0.08 percent, which equals approximately four drinks per hour for a 160-pound man or three drinks every two hours for a 120-pound female. The researchers also found people who didn’t always wear their seatbelts were almost four times more likely to report the incident as those people who wore them every time.

Frieden commented that drunk driving has a far-reaching impact as a public health dilemma and alcohol-impaired drivers are much too common on our roads. This problem puts everyone in harm’s way, including responsible drivers. The CDC recommends using sobriety checkpoints as well as devices such as ignition interlocks that prevent offenders who have already committed crimes from drinking and then driving.

Researchers are aware that people are not honest about the amount they drink and consequently they surely underestimate the amounts reported when they do drink and drive, Frieden notes.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported figures for adult drinking and driving in the United States. It found that there were 112 million instances of an adult over-drinking and then getting behind the wheel of a car to drive in 2010. Broken down further, there were 300,000 occurrences of drinking and driving each day that year, or 479 episodes of drinking and driving for every 1,000 U.S. adults. The 112 million figure is down 30 percent from the 161 million instances reported five years ago. Other good news from the CDC, between 2006 and 2009, the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities dropped to 10,839, which was a 20 percent reduction.

Those statistics include a disproportionate number of men. A full 81 percent of those who drink and drive are male. Perhaps not surprisingly, younger men hold a large piece of the offending pie. Young men aged 21-34 represent 11 percent of the total U.S. population, yet they account for 32 percent of all drinking and driving cases. In most cases (85 percent), those who drink and drive self-report that binge drinking, defined as drinking more than five consecutive alcoholic beverages in a short period for men and more than four for women, was involved.

Some have wondered what might be behind the improvements in responsible drinking and driving. In 2010, the University of Michigan reported results from research on this question and laid out several plausible contributing factors. The university study said that decreases could be the result of a tight economy which restricts discretionary spending. Rather than drive to a bar, more people may be drinking at home. The study also listed increased airbag installations and fewer repeat offenders as possible explanations for the positive trend.

The CDC said that there is more than sufficient public support behind official prevention measures. The center urges law officials to designate sobriety checkpoints, avoid lowering the legal drinking age to anything below 21 years, and utilize ignition devices which monitor blood alcohol levels for those with prior drinking and driving convictions.

Officials say that the country is making positive progress when it comes to reducing drinking and driving. Nevertheless, the habit is responsible for a U.S. death every 48 minutes of every day.

A new study, however, suggests that characteristics among those with DUI offenses are not easily summarized (Hubicka, et al., 2010). While previous research has shown that DUI offenders do tend to show some characteristics that separate them from the general population, such as an elevated risk of mental disorders, certain personality traits and a history of other types of criminal activity, DUI offenders cannot be considered a uniform group.

The study’s findings provide evidence that even when considering DUI offenders at the most serious levels of violations, variations exist in their personality and other characteristics. The researchers enrolled 163 participants in the study who were DUI offenders in Sweden whose blood alcohol level registered at or above 0.1 at the time of the offense.

The researchers used several measures to determine the characteristics of the population of DUI offenders who were being examined, including the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, which is an assessment for disordered alcohol-related behaviors. The tools used also included one that measures five major personality types and a measurement that assesses psychiatric symptoms.

The researchers also gathered records for all DUI incidents within the two years that followed the study. A cluster analysis was conducted to discover groupings among the participants according to personality, mental health and patterns of alcohol consumption. DUI relapses were also compared among the participants’ records.

The results indicated that there was a pattern identified among those with severe DUI records. This group exhibited a significantly lower level of conscientiousness, a higher level of agreeableness and lower levels of openness to new experiences when compared with the general population. The same group was assessed as significantly more problematic when it came to mental health measures.

The authors of the study believe that there may be some limitations to the results, including the use of severe Swedish DUI offenders. The trends observed among this population may not be consistent with trends occurring in the United States. In addition, the participants were recruited in such a way that required a proactive initiation on the participants’ part that may indicate a biased result.

It is important to detect trends among population groups that exhibit repeat DUI problems in order to provide the most effective intervention and treatment options. The work in this study, though not providing a homogeneous description of the typical DUI offender, does provide insight for the development of treatment strategies.

A recent University of Florida study underlines findings from a 2008 study conducted through the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics. Both studies reveal that parents are influential in determining the alcohol drinking behaviors of their children.

The 2008 Virginia study sought to examine the relationship between parental drinking patterns/behaviors and that of their teens as measured at ages 14 and 17.5. The study further attempted to determine how much of the relationship was attributable to parental drinking. Included in the study were questions directed to both parents and teens about frequency of alcohol use and questions directed at teens asking how they perceived the parenting they had been given.

The study used information gleaned from an ongoing Finnish study which provided data on over 4,700 teens and their parents. The data reported on 2,402 boys and 2,329 girls and parental data represented both parents 87 percent of the time while 13 percent of parental data came from a single parent.

The study revealed that during early adolescence, drinking attitudes and behavior were strongly influenced by parental monitoring and discipline. However, as the teen aged, parental and peer drinking habits were more influential.

The Florida study also found a correlation between parental drinking behaviors and teenage-young adult drinking patterns. The study was part of a national longitudinal study in which nearly 10,000 teenagers and parents were interviewed (1994-1995) and then surveyed once again seven years later (2001-2002). As with the Finnish study, this survey also gathered information relating to peer influences on drinking behaviors.

The Florida study found that 6 percent of teenagers who had parents who drank alcohol in even small amounts reported that they themselves drank alcohol and drove while intoxicated by the time they were 21 years of age. By comparison, 2 percent of teenagers whose parents did not drink reported drinking and driving while intoxicated. Overall, a teenager with parents who enjoyed even occasional glasses of wine was more likely to report drinking and driving as a young adult.

Similar to the results found by Virginia researchers in 2008, the Florida team also found that peer drinking became a strong influence on drinking behavior. In fact, peer drinking can exert greater influence than parental teetotaling. The highest degree of risk for driving under the influence of alcohol was having both parents and friends who were drinkers (11 percent).

Both studies show that parents have more influence than they often feel that they have with their adolescent and young adult children. More than anyone else, mom and dad set the bar for what is right and wrong behavior. Age-appropriate parenting which involves monitoring and disciplining in early years and appropriate role modeling throughout have proven to influence teenagers and young adults.

Other strategies include more preventative measures. A study recently measured the effectiveness of Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs). An IID is a device that is mounted on the dashboard and requires the driver to provide a breath sample periodically as the vehicle is in operation. If a certain level of alcohol is detected by the device, the car’s engine will not be operable.

Researchers conducted a meta-analysis that reviewed 15 studies measuring the usefulness of IIDs (Elder, Voas, Bierness, Shults, Sleet, Nichols & Compton, 2011). The researchers identified 15 studies that met certain qualifications and measured IID programs in states across the U.S. While there were variations in the programs, they all were designed to target high-risk offenders, were used along with a reduced sentence for a DUI and had a minimum time requirement for the IID installation.

Short-Term Reduction in Recidivism Rates Tied to IIDs

Consistent across the studies was a pattern showing reduced levels of recidivism in states that implemented IID programs. In all of the studies, recidivism was found to be 60 to 70 percent lower for offenders who had IIDs installed when compared to those who did not.

In one study where a randomized control trial of IIDs was measured, there was a 63 percent decrease in alcohol-related repeat arrests in the group with IIDs installed, when compared to a conventional treatment group (Beck, Rauch, Baker & Williams, 1999). However, in this study, only a small percentage of both groups were re-arrested.

Results of the meta-analysis showed no long-term impact from the use of IIDs after removal. The rates of recidivism among those who had IIDs installed rebounded to previous levels after removal of the device.

The authors of the review note that there were several limitations to the results of the study. None of the studies reviewed monitored the level of compliance with IID regulations. Previous research has shown that IIDs can be misused when a third party provides a breath sample, and those with an IID installed on their own vehicle are not prevented from driving another car. In addition, only one of the studies was a randomized controlled trial.

The review’s results provide evidence that IIDs are effective while in use, but they provide no long-term change in behavior that is reflected in rates of recidivism among those who have discontinued the use of IIDs.