Premium
Prospective Validation of a Screening Tool to Identify Older Adults in Need of a Driving Evaluation
Author(s) -
Betz Marian E.,
Haukoos Jason S.,
Schwartz Robert,
DiGuiseppi Carolyn,
Kandasamy Deepika,
Beaty Brenda,
JuarezColunga Elizabeth,
Carr David B.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1111/jgs.15222
Subject(s) - crash , logistic regression , medicine , observational study , test (biology) , descriptive statistics , machine learning , pathology , statistics , computer science , paleontology , mathematics , biology , programming language
Objectives To prospectively validate and refine the 5‐item “ CRASH ” screening tool for identifying older drivers needing a behind‐the‐wheel ( BTW ) test. Design Prospective observational study. Setting Geriatric and internal medicine primary care clinics affiliated with a tertiary care hospital and a local BTW program. Participants Cognitively intact drivers aged 65 and older (N = 315). Measurements Participants completed baseline questionnaire (including CRASH tool) and assessments and BTW test (evaluator blinded to questionnaire results) and participated in 1‐month telephone follow‐up. Analysis included descriptive statistics and examination of predictive ability of the CRASH tool to discriminate normal (pass) from abnormal (conditional pass or fail) on the BTW test, with logistic regression and CART techniques for tool refinement. Results Two hundred sixty‐six participants (84%) had a BTW test; of these, 17% had a normal rating and 83% an abnormal rating. Forty‐five percent of those with an abnormal score were advised to limit driving under particular conditions. Neither the CRASH tool nor its individual component variables were significantly associated with the summary BTW score; in refined models with other variables, the best‐performing tool had approximately 67% sensitivity and specificity for an abnormal BTW score. Most participants found the BTW test useful and were willing to pay a median of $50. At 1‐month follow‐up, no participants had stopped driving. Conclusion The CRASH screening tool cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice. Findings on older adults' perceived utility of the BTW test and the stability of driving patterns at 1‐month follow‐up could be useful for future research studies and for design of older driver programs.