We surveyed predictors associated with pass/fail test results for initial driving assessment using a driving simulator in stroke patients admitted to a subacute rehabilitation hospital.
Method:
We prospectively analyzed 106 inpatients with stroke. Driving assessment was done using a simulator. Sociodemographic, disease-related (duration from onset to initial assessment using a driving simulator), cognitive (Stroke Driver’s Screening Assessment (SDSA)), physical, and activity-related variables were assessed.
Results:
Multivariate logistic regression analyses demonstrated that three independent factors were associated with the pass/fail test result of initial driving assessment. These variables were the duration from onset to initial driving assessment using a driving simulator (per 1 day; odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–1.11, p = 0.00), required time (per 1 second; OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.01, p = 0.02), and errors of dot cancellation in the (per 1 time; OR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.05–1.28, p = 0.00) SDSA.
Conclusion:
Our results suggest that the duration from onset to initial driving assessment using a driving simulator, required time, and errors of dot cancellation in the SDSA are the three predictors determining the passing/failing of patients with stroke in a driving simulator test.
AkinwuntanAEDe WeerdtWFeysH, et al. (2005) The validity of a road test after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation86: 421–426.
2.
AkinwuntanAEO’ConnorCMcGonegalE, et al. (2012) Prediction of driving ability in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis using the stroke driver screening assessment. International Journal of MS Care14: 65–60.
3.
AloisioMKSwansonASMicaliN, et al. (2014) Analysis of partially observed clustered data using generalized estimating equations and multiple imputation. The Stata Journal14: 863–883.
4.
AmarencoPBogousslavskyJCaplanLR, et al. (2009) Classification of stroke subtypes. Cerebrovascular Diseases27: 493–501.
5.
BeesleyLJBondarenkoIElliotMR, et al. (2021) Multiple imputation with missing data indicators. Statistical Methods in Medical Research30: 2685–2700.
6.
BosJENooijSAESoumanJL (2021) (Im)possibilities of studying carsickness in a driving simulator. In: 20th driving simulation & virtual reality conference & exhibition (DSC 2021 EUROPE VR). pp.59–63. Munich: Driving Simulation Association.
7.
CaroneDEStraussEMSShermanO, et al. (2007) A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. A review of: “(3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, New York, 2006.” Applied Neuropsychology14: 62–63.
8.
DevosHHawleyCAConnAM, et al. (2021) Driving after stroke. In: PlatzT (ed.) Clinical Pathways in Stroke Rehabilitation: Evidence-based Clinical Practice Recommendations. Cham: Springer, pp.243–265.
9.
DickersonAEMolnarLJEbyDW, et al. (2007) Transportation and aging: a research agenda for advancing safe mobility. Gerontologist47: 578–590.
10.
DongYPengCYJ (2013) Principled missing data methods for researchers. Springerplus2: 222.
11.
FondaSJWallaceRBHerzogAR (2001) Changes in driving patterns and worsening depressive symptoms among older adults. Journal of Gerontology Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences56: S343–S351.
12.
Fugl-MeyerARJääsköLLeymanI, et al. (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine7: 13-31.
13.
GeorgeSCrottyM (2010) Establishing criterion validity of the useful field of view assessment and Stroke Drivers’ Screening Assessment: Comparison to the result of on-road assessment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy64: 114–122.
14.
GrangerCVCotterACHamiltonBB, et al. (1993) Functional assessment scales; a study of persons after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation74: 133–138.
15.
GrimesKMZanjaniAZakzanisKK (2017) Memory impairment and the mediating role of task difficulty in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences71: 600–611.
16.
HirdMAVetiveluASaposnikG, et al. (2014) Cognitive, on-road, and simulator-based driving assessment after stroke. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases23: 2654–2670.
17.
IkutaJSotokawaTNasuS, et al. (2023) Principal component analysis of driving simulator performance of fitness-to-drive in stroke patients: A case-controlled study. Japanese Occupational Therapy Research42: 141–150. [In Japanese.]
18.
IversonDJGronsethGSRegerMA, et al. (2010) Practice parameter update: Evaluation and management of driving risk in dementia: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology74: 1316–1324.
19.
KangH (2013) The prevention and handling of the missing data. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology64: 402–406.
20.
KatsuuraSSaitoHOtaH (2023) Behavioral characteristics of Stroke Driver’s Screening Assessment Japanese version (J-SDSA) in healthy elderly individuals and the relationship between the assessment results and self-administered questionnaire for automobile driving. Journal of the Japanese Society of Safety Driving and Medical Conditions3: 49–58. [In Japanese.]
21.
Korner-BitenskyNBitenskyJSoferS, et al. (2006) Driving evaluation practices of clinicians working in the United States and Canada. American Journal of Occupational Therapy60: 428–434.
22.
LiddleJTurpinMMcKennaK, et al. (2009) The experiences and needs of people who cease driving after stroke. Brain Impairment10: 271–281.
MarshallSCMolnarFMan-Son-HingM, et al. (2007) Predictors of driving ability following stroke: a systematic review. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation14: 98–114.
25.
MichonJA (1985) Critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know, what should we do? In: EvanLSchwingRC (eds) Human Behavior and Traffic Safety. Boston: Springer, pp.485–524.
26.
NouriFMLincolnNB (1992) Validation of a cognitive assessment: predicting driving performance after stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation6: 275–281.
27.
ObuchiKMutaiHYaguchiY, et al. (2023) Relationship between driving evaluation using a driving simulator and resumption/non-resumption of driving in brain-injury patients hospitalized in an acute care ward: A case-control study. Japanese Occupational Therapy Research42: 279–288. [In Japanese.]
28.
OkumaRWatanabeSTatewakiM, et al. (2020) Relationship between the evaluation of driving simulators and the judgement of resumption of driving for brain injured persons: Examination of standard value for judging the possibility of restarting operation. Japanese Occupational Therapy Research39: 202–209. [In Japanese.]
29.
OsterriethPA (1944) Le test de copie d’une figure complexe; contribution à l’étude de la perception et de la mémoire [Test of copying a complex figure; contribution to the study of perception and memory]. Archives of Psychology30: 206–356.
30.
RadfordKALincolnNB (2004) Concurrent validity of the stroke drivers screening assessment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation85: 324–328.
31.
RanchetMAkinwuntanETantM, et al. (2016) Fitness-to-drive agreements after stroke: Medical versus practical recommendation. European Journal of Neurology23: 1408–1414.
32.
SaaJPTseTBaumCM, et al. (2021) Cognitive recovery after stroke: A meta-analysis and metaregression of intervention and studies. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair35: 585–600.
33.
SaccoRLKasnerSEBroderickJP, et al. (2013) An updated definition of stroke for the 21st century: A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke44: 2064–2089.
34.
Sánchez-CubilloIPeriáñezJAAdrover-RoigD, et al. (2009) Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society15: 438–450.
35.
ShinMSParkSYParkSR, et al. (2006) Clinical and empirical applications of the Rey–Osterrieth complex figure test. Nature Protocol1: 892–899.
36.
SommerMHeidingerCArendasyM, et al. (2010) Cognitive and personality determinants of post-injury driving fitness. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology25: 99–117.
37.
TalsmaTMHassanainOHappeeR, et al. (2023) Validation of a moving base driving simulator for motion sickness research. Applied Ergonomics106: 103897.
38.
TsiakiriAChristidiFTsiptsiosD, et al. (2024) Processing speed and attentional shift/mental flexibility in patients with stroke: A comprehensive review on the trail making test in stroke studies. Neurology International16: 210–225.
39.
VandenbrouckeJPvon ElmEAltmanDG, et al. (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology18: 805–835.
40.
WhiteJHMillerBMaginP, et al. (2012) Access and participation in the community: A prospective qualitative study of driving post-stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation34: 831–838.
