Accident; analysis and prevention · 2025
A comparison of the prevalence of cannabis and alcohol use among drivers and passengers in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pei Lulu X, Chan Herbert, Besserer Floyd, Eppler Jeffrey, Lee Jacques, MacPherson Andrew, McGrath Michael, Ohle Robert, Taylor John, Vaillancourt Christian, Brubacher Jeffrey R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Similar to drink driving, the prevalence of driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) is expected to depend on the availability and cost of cannabis which would impact cannabis use in both drivers and passengers, and factors that specifically target cannabis use in drivers such as the deterrent effect of traffic laws and driver's opinion about the risks and acceptability of DUIC. To disentangle these effects, we aimed to compare the prevalence of alcohol and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detection 1) in drivers vs. passengers involved in motor vehicle accidents and 2) in drivers and passengers from BC vs. Ontario.
METHODS: Chart review and toxicology data from an ongoing prospective study of moderately injured motor vehicle occupants were analyzed. Log-binomial regression models were used to obtain prevalence ratios (PRs).
RESULTS: This manuscript reports on data from 3004 drivers and 941 passengers. Approximately half (55.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 43.8 (19.1) years. Alcohol and THC detection prevalence was 14.2% and 12.4%, respectively. Passengers had higher prevalence of alcohol than drivers (aPR [95% CI]: 1.22 [1.06, 1.40]). No difference in THC prevalence was observed between drivers and passengers. Ontario drivers had higher prevalence of alcohol detection than BC drivers (aPR [95% CI]: 1.33 [1.13, 1.58]) but lower prevalence of THC detection (aPR [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.64, 0.99]). Among passengers, no significant interprovincial differences were observed for alcohol or THC detection.
CONCLUSION: These findings may be partially explained by differences in provincial traffic laws, public opinion, and overall consumption rates.
METHODS: Chart review and toxicology data from an ongoing prospective study of moderately injured motor vehicle occupants were analyzed. Log-binomial regression models were used to obtain prevalence ratios (PRs).
RESULTS: This manuscript reports on data from 3004 drivers and 941 passengers. Approximately half (55.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 43.8 (19.1) years. Alcohol and THC detection prevalence was 14.2% and 12.4%, respectively. Passengers had higher prevalence of alcohol than drivers (aPR [95% CI]: 1.22 [1.06, 1.40]). No difference in THC prevalence was observed between drivers and passengers. Ontario drivers had higher prevalence of alcohol detection than BC drivers (aPR [95% CI]: 1.33 [1.13, 1.58]) but lower prevalence of THC detection (aPR [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.64, 0.99]). Among passengers, no significant interprovincial differences were observed for alcohol or THC detection.
CONCLUSION: These findings may be partially explained by differences in provincial traffic laws, public opinion, and overall consumption rates.