BACKGROUND: Some older drivers may have a higher crash risk than others. Because many of these drivers have not received formal driving training, we evaluated the effectiveness of a re-training program for older drivers as it is currently being offered. Specifically, we examined if older drivers who received the training would have better scores on a driving evaluation than drivers who did not receive the training. METHODS: We used a randomized controlled trial. Participants first took part in on-road driving evaluations (possible scores ranged from 0 to 100), after which they were block randomized into training (treatment) or waiting (control) groups based on the driving evaluation results, age, and sex. Individuals in the treatment group attended driver re-training sessions, and were tested once more with the on-road test. Those in the control group completed their second driving evaluation and were then offered the re-training sessions. The second evaluations took place approximately two months after the first evaluations. RESULTS:Sixty-five participants completed two driving evaluations. Despite the overall improvement in driving scores (3.73, SD = 6.87, p = 0.001), we found no statistically significant difference between the control and treatment groups. The mean improvement for the control group was 3.46 (SD=6.72) compared to 4.02 (SD=7.11) for the treatment group (p = 0.747). Drivers' age was related to overall driving scores (r = -0.55, p = 0.001) but not changes between the first and second evaluations (r = 0.01, p = 0.955). INTERPRETATION: Although we have not demonstrated a statistically significant impact of the intervention, the overall increase suggests that an initial driving evaluation may underestimate the actual driving ability of many older drivers. Furthermore, although older drivers may have lower driving scores initially, they have the ability to improve on these scores. These findings should encourage us to explore diverse approaches to improve driving safety.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Some older drivers may have a higher crash risk than others. Because many of these drivers have not received formal driving training, we evaluated the effectiveness of a re-training program for older drivers as it is currently being offered. Specifically, we examined if older drivers who received the training would have better scores on a driving evaluation than drivers who did not receive the training. METHODS: We used a randomized controlled trial. Participants first took part in on-road driving evaluations (possible scores ranged from 0 to 100), after which they were block randomized into training (treatment) or waiting (control) groups based on the driving evaluation results, age, and sex. Individuals in the treatment group attended driver re-training sessions, and were tested once more with the on-road test. Those in the control group completed their second driving evaluation and were then offered the re-training sessions. The second evaluations took place approximately two months after the first evaluations. RESULTS: Sixty-five participants completed two driving evaluations. Despite the overall improvement in driving scores (3.73, SD = 6.87, p = 0.001), we found no statistically significant difference between the control and treatment groups. The mean improvement for the control group was 3.46 (SD=6.72) compared to 4.02 (SD=7.11) for the treatment group (p = 0.747). Drivers' age was related to overall driving scores (r = -0.55, p = 0.001) but not changes between the first and second evaluations (r = 0.01, p = 0.955). INTERPRETATION: Although we have not demonstrated a statistically significant impact of the intervention, the overall increase suggests that an initial driving evaluation may underestimate the actual driving ability of many older drivers. Furthermore, although older drivers may have lower driving scores initially, they have the ability to improve on these scores. These findings should encourage us to explore diverse approaches to improve driving safety.
Authors: William A Satariano; Jack M Guralnik; Richard J Jackson; Richard A Marottoli; Elizabeth A Phelan; Thomas R Prohaska Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 9.308