4.3 Article

Screening for Drugs in Oral Fluid: Drug Driving and Illicit Drug Use in a Sample of Queensland Motorists

Journal

TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 231-236

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15389580902826817

Keywords

Drug driving; Oral fluid; Roadside drug screening

Funding

  1. internal Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland/Motor Accident Insurance Commission
  2. Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Random roadside oral fluid testing is becoming increasingly popular as an apprehension and deterrence-based countermeasure to reduce drug driving. This article outlines research conducted to provide an estimate of the extent of drug driving in a sample of drivers in Brisbane, Queensland. Methods: Oral fluid samples were collected from 1587 drivers who volunteered to participate at random breath testing (RBT) sites. Illicit substances tested for included cannabis (delta 9 tetrahydrocannibinol [THC]), meth/amphetamines, and cocaine. Drivers also completed a self-report questionnaire regarding their drug-related driving behaviors. Results: Oral fluid samples from 58 participants (3.7%) were confirmed positive for at least one illicit substance. The most common drugs detected in oral fluid were ecstasy (n = 35) followed by cannabis (n = 20). Similarly, cannabis was confirmed as the most common self-reported drug combined with driving. Nevertheless, individuals who tested positive to any drug through oral fluid analysis were also more likely to report the highest frequency of drug driving. Conclusions: This research provides evidence that drug driving is relatively prevalent on some Queensland roads, and thus the behavior presents as a serious road safety threat. This article will further outline the study findings and present possible directions for future drug driving research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available