SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Eramudugolla R, Laird M, Black AA, Cameron ID, Wood JM, Anstey KJ. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2022; 168: e106595.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.aap.2022.106595

PMID

35247852

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To examine the validity of high-contrast visual acuity and the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) as tools for identifying at-risk older drivers.

DESIGN: Prospective multi-site observational cohort study. SETTING: Community sample drawn from cities of Brisbane and Canberra, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 560 licensed drivers aged 65-96 years recruited between 2013 and 2016, from the community, an optometry clinic and driver referral service. MEASUREMENTS: 50-minute standardized on-road driving test conducted on a standard urban route in a dual-brake vehicle with a driver trained Occupational Therapist assessor masked to participants' cognitive, visual and medical status.

RESULTS: Of 560 participants who completed the on-road test, 68 (12%) were classified as unsafe. Binary logistic regression models adjusted for age, gender, site, comorbidity and driving exposure indicated that a 1-point decrease in MMSE score was associated with a 1.35 (95%CI: 1.12-1.63) increase in odds of unsafe driving, and for each line reduction in binocular visual acuity (increase of 0.1 logMAR) was associated with 1.39 (95%CI: 1.07-1.81) increased odds of unsafe driving. However, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis showed low discriminative power for both measures (MMSE: AUC = 0.65 (95%CI: 0.58-0.73), visual acuity: AUC = 0.65 (95%CI: 0.59-0.72)) and typical cut-offs were associated with very low sensitivity for identifying unsafe drivers (MMSE <24/30: 2%; visual acuity worse than 6/12 Snellen (logMAR >0.30): 3%).

CONCLUSION: The MMSE and high-contrast visual acuity tests do not reliably identify at-risk older drivers. They have extremely low sensitivity for detecting unsafe drivers, even when used together, and poor prognostic properties relative to validated screening instruments that measure cognitive, vision and sensorimotor functions relevant to driving. Clinicians should select alternate validated driver screening tools where possible.


Language: en

Keywords

Driving; Injury prevention; Validation; Crash; Screening

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print