Alcohol Use
Conditions
Keywords
Social drinker
Brief summary
This study aims to test the efficacy of experiential-based training to increase DUI offenders' perceptions or risk associated with alcohol use.
Detailed description
This project examines the efficacy of a laboratory-based intervention to increase risk awareness of DUI offenders during states of acute alcohol intoxication. The proposed research will test the efficacy of an innovative experiential-based training approach to improve DUI offenders' ability to appraise their level of intoxication and enhance their risk awareness. DUI offenders will undergo experiential-based training in which they are administered a controlled dose of alcohol and receive structured feedback and mindfulness-based training to accurately appraise the impairing effects of alcohol and estimate their breath alcohol concentration. The research tests the hypothesis that the experiential training will increase DUI offenders' risk awareness in the intoxicated state as evident by reduced disinhibition and risk-taking behavior in response to alcohol, and reduced self-reported alcohol consumption over a follow up period. A total of 60 DUI offenders and 60 non-offender controls will be recruited. The study tests the degree to which acute alcohol intoxication impairs key indicators of risk awareness in DUI offenders and the efficacy of experiential feedback to increase risk awareness during intoxication. Two key indicators of impaired risk awareness will be assessed during intoxication: 1) increased disinhibition/risk-taking and; 2) reduced perception of intoxication. Two main hypotheses are tested. Hypothesis 1: Prior to training, DUI offenders will display greater disinhibition/risk-taking and less perceived impairment in response to alcohol compared with controls. Hypothesis 2: Experiential feedback training will increase intoxicated risk awareness among DUI offenders as evident by reduced disinhibiting and risk-taking effects in response to alcohol and increased perception of impairment and accuracy of BAC estimation. Offenders and controls will undergo a pre-training assessment of their responses to a controlled dose of 0.65 g/kg alcohol versus a placebo on the two key indicators of risk awareness: disinhibition/risk-taking and perceived intoxication. Experiential feedback training sessions will begin within one week of completing the pre-training assessment of intoxicated risk awareness. Subjects will attend two training sessions in which they are administered a controlled dose of alcohol and receive structured training to accurately estimate their breath alcohol concentration and accurately appraise the behavioral impairing effects of alcohol. Half of the DUI offenders (20 men and 10 women) will be randomly assigned to the training condition and the other half assigned to an alcohol-exposure-only "control" condition. Non-offender, control subjects will undergo the same group assignment procedure. After completing the two training sessions all subjects will be re-tested on the two indicators of risk awareness in response to 0.65 g/kg alcohol: disinhibition/risk-taking and perceived intoxication. The post-training assessment of alcohol responses is identical to the pre-training assessment and will be conducted at 2 time points: 1-week post-training and 3 months post-training, to evaluate retention effects. Alcohol consumption also will be assessed at monthly intervals over the 3 month follow-up to evaluate the training efficacy to reduce high-risk patterns of consumption (e.g., binge episodes).
Interventions
BEHAVIORALBlood alcohol concentration (BAC) discrimination training
Subjects will receive 0.65 g/kg alcohol to yield a peak BAC of 85 mg/dl (0.085%). They will be trained to accurately estimate their BAC using the Body Scan Exercise with BAC feedback.
BEHAVIORALPerformance feedback training
This training element targets the driver's self-efficacy by increasing their awareness of the behavioral impairing effects of alcohol that are experienced at BACs at and even below the legal limit (50-80 mg/dl).
BEHAVIORALBlood alcohol concentration (BAC) discrimination training for controls
Subjects will receive 0.65 g/kg alcohol to yield a peak BAC of 85 mg/dl (0.085%). They will be given a general Body Scan Exercise with no feedback.
Sponsors
Mark Fillmore
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
21 Years to 45 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Valid driver's license for at least 5 years * Drive regularly (weekly basis)
Exclusion criteria
* History of physical or psychiatric disease * Pregnancy * Breastfeeding * Substance use disorder (other than nicotine or caffeine use)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Number of Alcohol Binges | Baseline, 30 and 60 days post intervention | Alcohol consumption will be assessed at monthly intervals from baseline to follow up and will be measured using a timeline follow back assessment. Participants will self-report data on number of days when the participant demonstrates binge drinking (5+ drinks per day for men; 4+ drinks per day for women). |
| Mean Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS) at Baseline | Baseline | Change in tonic alcohol cravings over the past week will be assessed using the Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS) which is a five-item self-report indicated with strong psychometrics. 'Frequency' is the frequency of craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. 'Strong' is the intensity of craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. 'Time' is the duration of craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. 'Resist' is the inability to resist craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. 'Crave' is overall craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. PACS uses a 0-6 point Likert scale for each item where a higher number for each of the five items indicates more cravings. Total scores range from 0 to 30. |
| Mean Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS) Post Intervention | Post Intervention (up to 14 days) | Change in tonic alcohol cravings over the past week will be assessed using the Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS) which is a five-item self-report indicated with strong psychometrics. 'Frequency' is the frequency of craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. 'Strong' is the intensity of craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. 'Time' is the duration of craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. 'Resist' is the inability to resist craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. 'Crave' is overall craving with a score on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 with higher scores meaning worse craving. PACS uses a 0-6 point Likert scale for each item where a higher number for each of the five items indicates more cravings. Total scores range from 0 to 30. |
| Mean Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness Ver. 2 (MAIA-2) Scale | Baseline (Intervention Session) | The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness Ver. 2 (MAIA-2) is a 37-item self-report measure of 8 dimensions of self-perceived interoceptive ability. The dimensions are: Notice (awareness of uncomfortable, comfortable, or neutral body sensations), Not Distracted (tendency not to ignore or distract oneself from sensations of pain or discomfort), Not Worried (tendency not to worry or experience emotional distress with sensations of pain or discomfort), Attention Regulation (ability to sustain and control attention to body sensations), Emotion (awareness of the connection between body sensations and emotional states), Self-Regulation (ability to regulate distress by attention to body sensations), Body (tendency to actively "listen" to the body for insight), and Trust (experience of one's body as safe and trustworthy). The minimum score for each of the eight dimensions is 0 while the maximum score is 5, with higher scores indicating better outcomes/greater interoception. |
| Mean Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) Scale | Post Intervention (up to 14 days) | The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness Ver. 2 (MAIA-2) is a 37-item self-report measure of 8 dimensions of self-perceived interoceptive ability. The dimensions are: Notice (awareness of uncomfortable, comfortable, or neutral body sensations), Not Distracted (tendency not to ignore or distract oneself from sensations of pain or discomfort), Not Worried (tendency not to worry or experience emotional distress with sensations of pain or discomfort), Attention Regulation (ability to sustain and control attention to body sensations), Emotion (awareness of the connection between body sensations and emotional states), Self-Regulation (ability to regulate distress by attention to body sensations), Body (tendency to actively "listen" to the body for insight), and Trust (experience of one's body as safe and trustworthy). The minimum score for each of the eight dimensions is 0 while the maximum score is 5, with higher scores indicating better outcomes/greater interoception. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORMark Fillmore, PhD
University of Kentucky
Participant flow
Pre-assignment details
Orientation session all subjects complete binge drinking measure (TLFB) and PACS. Up to 1 week later, participants attend a Pre-Intervention session, all receive 0.65 g/kg dose of alcohol or placebo on separate days in a counterbalanced order. Subjects are then randomized to intervention or no intervention.
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | — |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 25 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.3 |
| Blood Alcohol Content | .072 percentage of alcohol in blood STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.016 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 57 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 12 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 94 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 57 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 58 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 29 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 55 | 0 / 57 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 55 | 0 / 57 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 55 | 0 / 57 |
Outcome results
None listed