DUI Offenders Who Delay Relicensing: A Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: As in many jurisdictions, individuals convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) in the province of Quebec are mandated to relicensing programs, which include obligatory participation in intervention programs. However, prolonged delay in relicensing is widespread, potentially contributing to unlicensed driving, untreated substance misuse problems, and drink-driving risk. Information about the characteristics of DUI offenders who delay relicensing (DR) is sparse. This investigation compares the characteristics of DR offenders with those offenders who do not delay (NoDR). In addition, the rationales of DR offenders for delaying relicensing are explored qualitatively. METHODS: Two studies were conducted to explore the characteristics of DR offenders. In Study 1, DR offenders (n = 46) were compared to NoDR offenders (n = 74) on multidimensional measures of psychosocial functioning, driving behavior, substance use, and psychological and neurocognitive characteristics. In Study 2, a qualitative examination of 20 DR offenders' reasons underlying delayed relicensing was undertaken, with verbatims content analyzed to identify major themes. A questionnaire, based upon this preliminary analysis, was then administered to another sample of DR participants (N = 37) to appraise and confirm thematic comprehensiveness. RESULTS: The main findings of Study 1 were that, compared to NoDR offenders, DR offenders had more past DUI convictions, were at greater risk for drink driving per kilometer (km) driven, were more likely to have received substance abuse treatment, and exhibited indices of poorer neurocognitive performance in visual memory and behavioral inhibition domains. No group differences were uncovered on substance use measures. The findings of Study 2 revealed that the expense of participation, availability of alternate transportation, lack of interest, and no access to a vehicle were the most frequent explanations for delayed relicensing. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings suggest that both individual and contextual factors influence timely fulfillment of relicensing requirements. While the cost of relicensing may succeed in removing some offenders from the road, it may also be a barrier for others at risk for drink driving, preventing exposure to needed intervention programs. Reducing this barrier may need to be weighted against the risks of relicensing more DUI offenders. Neurocognitive factors may need to be taken into account to not only decrease delay in relicensing but also increase the benefits from participation in interventions that are part of current relicensing programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».