Marian E Betz1, Jason S Haukoos1,2, Robert Schwartz3,4, Carolyn DiGuiseppi5, Deepika Kandasamy1, Brenda Beaty6,7, Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga6,7, David B Carr8. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado. 3. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 4. Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Eastern Colorado Veterans Affairs, Denver, Colorado. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. 6. Adult and Child Center for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, Aurora, Colorado. 7. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. 8. Division of Geriatrics and Nutritional Science, Department of Medicine and Neurology, School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Marian E Betz; Robert Schwartz; Jason S Haukoos; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Morgan Valley; Ruth Johnson; Steven R Lowenstein Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Andrew Woolnough; Danish Salim; Shawn C Marshall; Kelly Weegar; Michelle M Porter; Mark J Rapoport; Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Michel Bédard; Isabelle Gélinas; Nicol Korner-Bitensky; Barbara Mazer; Gary Naglie; Holly Tuokko; Brenda Vrkljan Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2013-03-26
Authors: Sherrilene Classen; Sandra M Winter; Craig A Velozo; Michel Bédard; Desiree N Lanford; Babette Brumback; Barbara J Lutz Journal: Am J Occup Ther Date: 2010 Mar-Apr
Authors: Margaret G O'Connor; Lissa R Kapust; Bixuan Lin; Ann M Hollis; Richard N Jones Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Christopher M Callahan; Frederick W Unverzagt; Siu L Hui; Anthony J Perkins; Hugh C Hendrie Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.983