Sürücü Davranışları Geliştirme Eğitimine (SÜDGE) Uyumun Değerlendirilmesi: AMATEM Verileri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Yıl 2024, , 321 - 326, 05.09.2024

Neşe Burcu Bal

https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.1410008

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Sürücü Davranışları Geliştirme Eğitimine (SÜDGE) başvuran ve alkol kullanım bozukluğu (AKB) ön tanısıyla Alkol ve Madde Tedavi Merkezine (AMATEM) yönlendirilen 128 bireyin takip süreçlerine odaklanmayı amaçlamaktadır. Veri incelemesi, sosyodemografik özellikler, takip süreleri, başvuru sayıları ve AKB tespit oranları gibi bilgilere erişim sağlayarak, sağlık hizmetlerinin daha etkili bir şekilde planlanmasına ve AKB ön tanısı olan bireylere yönelik destek süreçlerine ilişkin kapsamlı bir anlayış geliştirilmesine yardımcı olacaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Ekim 2021 ile Ekim 2023 tarihleri arasında AMATEM biriminin adli polikliniğine başvuran ve SÜDGE’den AKB ön tanısı alan 128 kişinin verileri retrospektif olarak analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Yaş ortalaması 41,85±8,79 yıl ve ortanca sevk sayısı 9 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Katılımcıların takip süresi 237,09±171,35 gün, %96,9'u erkek, %78,1'i ilkokul mezunu, %43'ü 6 aydan az ve %57'si 6 aydan fazla süredir takip edilmektedir. Pozitif sonuç alınan bireylerin oranı %64,8, uzun süreli pozitif sonuç alınan bireylerin oranı ise %41,4'tür. "Pozitif" ve "devam" durumundaki katılımcılar arasında yaş, başvuru sayısı, takip süreleri, cinsiyet ve eğitim düzeyi açısından anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (p>0.05). Bununla birlikte, takip sürelerine ilişkin alt grup analizinde, pozitif sonuç alan katılımcılar arasında 6 aydan uzun süreli takip oranında, takip süresi ≤6 ay olanlara kıyasla anlamlı bir fark gözlenmiştir (p<0,05).
Sonuç: Araştırmamızın sonuçları olumlu sonuç alan bireylerin daha uzun süre takip edildiklerinde daha başarılı olduklarını göstermektedir. Çalışma, AKB ön tanısıyla başvuran bireylerin takip süreçlerinin devamlılığının geliştirilmesine katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Alkol kullanımı, Trafik Kazası, AMATEM, SÜDGE

Assessing Compliance with Driver Behavior Improvement Training (DBET): A Study on ADATC Data

Öz

Objective: This study aims to focus on the follow-up processes of 128 people who applied to Driver Behavior Improvement Training (DBET) and were referred to the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment Center (ADATC) with a prediagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD). By providing access to critical information such as sociodemographic characteristics, follow-up times, number of admissions, and AUD detection rates, data review will help to plan health services more effectively and develop a comprehensive understanding of support processes for individuals with a prediagnosis of AUD.
Material and Method: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 128 individuals who applied to the ADATC forensic outpatient clinic between October 2021 and October 2023 and received a preliminary diagnosis of AUD from the DBET.
Results: The mean age was 41.85±8.79 years, and the median number of referrals was 9. The follow-up period was 237.09±171.35 days; of the participants, 96.9% were male, 78.1% were primary school graduates, 43% were followed for less than six months, and 57% for more than six months. The rate of individuals with positive results was 64.8%, and the rate of individuals with long-term positive results was 41.4%. No significant differences were found between the participants in the 'positive' and 'continuation' status regarding age, number of applications, follow-up periods, gender, and educational level (p>0.05). However, in the subgroup analysis of follow-up periods, a significant difference was observed in the follow-up rate for more than six months between participants with positive results compared to those with a follow-up time of <6 months (p<0.05).
Conclusion: It indicates that individuals with a positive outcome succeed more when followed up for longer. The study contributes to the understanding of the follow-up processes of individuals presenting with a prediagnosis of AUD and the development of a comprehensive understanding of providing adequate support.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Alcohol use, Traffic Accident, AMATEM, DBET

Kaynakça

• 1. Tellioglu M, Tekin ÖF, Arikan I. Descriptive characteristics of drivers participating in driver behavior improvement training at a community health center. ESTÜDAM Halk Sağlığı Dergisi. 2019;4(2):176–183.
• 2. Hadland SE, Xuan Z, Sarda V, Blanchette J, Swahn MH, Heeren TC, Voas RB, Naimi TS. Alcohol Policies and Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities Among Young People in the US. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3):e20163037.
• 3. Martin JL, Gadegbeku B, Wu D, Viallon V, Laumon B. Cannabis, alcohol and fatal road accidents. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0187320.
• 4. Almatar H, Alamri S, Alduhayan R, Alabdulkader B, Albdah B, Stalin A, Alsomaie B, Almazroa A. Visual Functions, Seatbelt Usage, Speed, and Alcohol Consumption Standards for Driving and Their Impact on Road Traffic Accidents. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2023; 15:225-246.
• 5. World Health Organization. (n.d.). United Nations Road Safety Collaboration. Retrieved November 15, 2023, from https://www.who.int/groups/united-nations-road-safety-collaboration/.
• 6. European Road Safety Observatory. (2006). Alcohol. Retrieved December 25, 2007, from https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/02-alcohol_en.pdf.
• 7. Drink Driving: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners (2022). Global Road Safety Partnership, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva. 2023; 4:51.
• 8. Kroj Taymur İ, Duyan V, Özdel K, Budak E, &Güngör B B. The Effectiveness of Improvement of Driver-Behavior Program on Self-Control of Individuals Whose Driving Licenses Have Been Seized Due to Drinking and Driving. Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research. 2015; 3:182
• 9. G, Dienes E. Driver improvement. In: Traffic psychology today. Springer; 2001:165–179.
• 10. Sürücü Davranışlarını Geliştirme Eğitimi Yönetmeliği. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Resmi Gazete (2004). Başbakanlık Mevzuatı Geliştirme ve Yayın Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2004/09/20040914.htm#1
• 11. Nevalennaya A. Sociodemographic characteristics, alcohol drinking and self-rated health among Russian women: A cross-sectional study. [Master Thesis in Public Health]. Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences. Centre for Health Equity Studies; 2014: 40.
• 12. Collins SE. Associations between socioeconomic factors and alcohol outcomes. Alcohol Res: Curr Rev. 2016;38(1):83.
• 13. Mohammed Najeeb PM. A study of psychological factors influencing dangerous driving, speeding, and violation behavior of drivers [Doctoral dissertation]. Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India; 2013: 33.
• 14. Spithoff S, Kahan M. Primary care management of alcohol use disorder and at-risk drinking: Part 2: counsel, prescribe, connect. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(6):515-521.
• 15. Hammarberg S I, Wallhed Finn S, Rosendahl I, Andréasson S, Jayaram‐Lindström N, & Hammarberg A. Behavioural self‐control training versus motivational enhancement therapy for individuals with alcohol use disorder with a goal of controlled drinking: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2024; 119:86-101.