# Facilitator perspectives on in-person versus videoconference delivery of a remedial intervention for impaired drivers: a qualitative study

## TL;DR

This study compares in-person and online delivery of a driver education program for impaired drivers, based on facilitators' experiences.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into the effectiveness and challenges of online versus in-person delivery of a remedial driver education program.

## Key findings

- Online delivery improved access and allowed participation from beyond local areas.
- Online workshops were perceived as more manageable but harder to build rapport in.
- Facilitators recommend continuing online workshops while also offering in-person options.

## Abstract

Remedial education programs for drivers who have committed an impaired driving offence have been adopted in many jurisdictions worldwide to address impaired driving recidivism. Back on Track (BOT) is a three-part program in Ontario, Canada, which includes an 8-hour or 16-hour workshop. Although originally mandated by the Province to be delivered in-person only, a shift to online workshop delivery was required during the COVID-19 pandemic, when public health measures forbid public gathering. This study aimed to identify: (1) benefits and drawbacks for impaired driving offenders attending the program via videoconferencing technology, and; (2) potential improvements for videoconferencing-based delivery, from the facilitators’ perspective.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten BOT facilitators who had experience delivering the 8-hour workshop both in-person (before the pandemic) and online via videoconferencing. Interviews were conducted via Webex, were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.

Facilitators noted that online delivery of BOT improved participant access to the program and allowed BOT providers to accommodate participants from beyond their own geographical catchment area, facilitating earlier completion of the program. However, because access to the Internet or a home computer is not universal and some participants are less familiar with videoconferencing technology, videoconferencing does not address all access issues. The ability to mute workshop discussion when online facilitated movement through curriculum and private virtual spaces could be used for one-on-one communication with any participant under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Anxiety and discomfort associated with attending an addictions treatment centre in the company of strangers was alleviated. Instead of one 8-hour in-person day, the two 4-hour online days were perceived by facilitators as more manageable and less rushed. While facilitators noted a steep learning curve in use of videoconferencing software, technology malfunctioning sometimes posed a challenge. It was also more difficult to build rapport and create connections with participants in an online setting.

Facilitators mostly agreed that BOT participants likely benefit as much from the program online as they do in-person, and suggested that online workshops should continue because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Facilitators also recommended that in-person workshops be offered for those who cannot access online platforms.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-025-00626-2.