Prevalence of drug use among drivers based on mandatory, random tests in a roadside survey

PLoS One. 2018 Jun 19;13(6):e0199302. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199302. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

Background: In the context of road safety, this study aims to examine the prevalence of drug use in a random sample of drivers.

Methods: A stratified probabilistic sample was designed to represent vehicles circulating on non-urban roads. Random drug tests were performed during autumn 2014 on 521 drivers in Catalonia (Spain). Participation was mandatory. The prevalence of drug driving for cannabis, methamphetamines, amphetamines, cocaine, opiates and benzodiazepines was assessed.

Results: The overall prevalence of drug use is 16.4% (95% CI: 13.9; 18.9) and affects primarily younger male drivers. Drug use is similarly prevalent during weekdays and on weekends, but increases with the number of occupants. The likelihood of being positive for methamphetamines is significantly higher for drivers of vans and lorries.

Conclusions: Different patterns of use are detected depending on the drug considered. Preventive drug tests should not only be conducted on weekends and at night-time, and need to be reinforced for drivers of commercial vehicles. Active educational campaigns should focus on the youngest age-group of male drivers.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Age Factors*
  • Aged
  • Amphetamines / adverse effects
  • Automobile Driving*
  • Benzodiazepines / adverse effects
  • Cannabis / adverse effects
  • Cocaine / adverse effects
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Methamphetamine / adverse effects
  • Middle Aged
  • Opiate Alkaloids / adverse effects
  • Sex Characteristics*
  • Spain / epidemiology
  • Substance-Related Disorders / epidemiology*

Substances

  • Amphetamines
  • Opiate Alkaloids
  • Benzodiazepines
  • Methamphetamine
  • Cocaine

Grants and funding

This study was supported by the Catalan Traffic Service and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under Grants ECO2015-66314-R and ECO2016-76203-C2-2-P. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.