promoting safe driving strategies to older drivers with visual impairment does not reduce crash rate
Post on 25-Nov-2016
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Evidence-Based Healthcare & Public Health (2004) 8, 292–293
KEYWORDEducation;Traffic accAccident pVision disoDriver-safeprograms;Elderly;Randomisecontrolled
1744-2249/$ - sdoi:10.1016/j.e
$Abstractedimpaired, older
www.elsevier.com/locate/ebhph
EVIDENCE-BASED PUBLIC HEALTH
Promoting safe driving strategies to olderdrivers with visual impairment does notreduce crash rate$
S
idents;revention;rders;ty
dtrial
ee front matter r 200hbc.2004.08.021
from: Owsley C, McGwdrivers. American Jou
Summary
Question Does an individualised education programme, promoting safe drivingstrategies, reduce the crash rate of visually impaired older drivers?
Study design Randomised controlled trial.
Main results Crash rate. There were no significant differences in the crash ratebetween groups at two years (education vs. usual care: number of collisions 53/227vs. 38/176, RR of crash per 100 person years of driving: 1.08; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.64; permillion person–miles of travel: RR, 1.40; 95% CI 0.92 to 2.12). Self-regulation.Education increased self-reported avoidance of challenging driving manoeuvres andself-regulatory behaviour compared with usual care (p40.0001).
Authors’ conclusions This educational programme did not reduce vehicle collisionrates or increase the safety of older, visually impaired drivers.r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Study parameters
Question
Does an individualised education programme, promoting safe driving strategies, reduce the crash rate ofvisually impaired older drivers?
Study design
Randomised controlled trial.
Setting
Birmingham, Alabama, USA; timeframe not stated.
Participants
403 older drivers (60+ years) with visual impairment, defined as visual acuity [habitual or binocular]between 20/30 and 20/60, or restriction in the useful field of view (scoring X 40% reduction, measured
4 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
in G, Phillips JM et al. Impact of an educational program on the safety of high-risk, visuallyrnal of Preventive Medicine 2004; 26: 222–229.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
EVIDENCE-BASED PUBLIC HEALTH 293
with useful field of view test, or both) and who had been the driver in a crash in the previous year.Participants drove at least five days or 100 miles per week, or both.
Intervention
Usual care (comprehensive eye examination) or usual care plus educational intervention (two ‘one on one’sessions with a health educator specialising in driver safety and gerontology).
Main outcomes
Crash involvement over the following two years, expressed as rate of person-years of follow-up or person-miles of travel. Driving exposure information was collected by telephone at six-month intervals.Information on collisions was obtained from the Alabama Department of Public Safety. Participantscompleted questionnaires on self–regulation activities (e.g. avoiding turns across traffic, rush hour, nightdriving).
Notes
There was complete follow-up of 349 out of 403 (87%) participants.
Sources of funding: General Motors Corporation, Research to prevent blindness, Inc., and the EyeSightFoundation of Alabama.
Abstract provided by Bazian Ltd, London