Next Article in Journal
Current Research and New Perspectives of Telemedicine in Chronic Heart Failure: Narrative Review and Points of Interest for the Clinician
Next Article in Special Issue
Clinical and Biomarker Characteristics According to Clinical Spectrum of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) in the Validation Cohort of Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early Diagnosis and Prediction of AD
Previous Article in Journal
Examining the Association and Directionality between Mental Health Disorders and Substance Use among Adolescents and Young Adults in the U.S. and Canada—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Moderating Effect of Insulin Resistance on the Relationship between Gray Matter Volumes and Cognitive Function
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 7
Issue 12
10.3390/jcm7120545
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Driving Cessation and Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment

by
Jung-Min Pyun
,
Min Ju Kang
,
Sohee Kim
,
Min Jae Baek
,
Min Jeong Wang
and
SangYun Kim
*
Department of Neurology, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam-si 13620, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7(12), 545; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7120545
Submission received: 21 November 2018 / Revised: 10 December 2018 / Accepted: 11 December 2018 / Published: 13 December 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mild Cognitive Impairment)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although driving by adults with cognitive impairment is an important public health concern, little is known about the indicators of driving cessation in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of driving cessation in patients with MCI and the predictive value of cognitive performances for driving cessation. Patients with MCI were recruited in the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital; they met following inclusion criteria. Age range of 51–80 years, Clinical Dementia Rating scale score of 0.5, and ever car drivers including former and current drivers. All participants underwent comprehensive standardized cognitive assessments and information on driving status was obtained via an interview using a systematic questionnaire. The median age of the 135 participants was 72 years, and 54 participants (40%) were women; 93 patients (68.9%) were current drivers and 42 (31.1%) were former drivers. In univariate analysis, former drivers showed poorer performances in digit span backward and categorical fluency tests than current drivers. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, a poor digit span backward test score was significantly related with driving cessation (odds ratio: 0.493, 95% confidence interval: 0.258–0.939). In patients with MCI, poor performance in the digit span backward test, which represents impaired working memory capacity, was associated with a higher probability of driving cessation.

1. Introduction

The driving ability of patients with cognitive impairment is an important public health concern. Approximately 22–46% of patients with mild to moderate dementia drive [1,2]. Although driving allows the maintenance of mobility, independence, and functional daily living [3,4], patients with dementia are at risk of accidents due to their impaired cognition [5,6,7]. In this regard, it is critical to know the factors that predict driving cessation in patients with dementia. Previous studies have revealed that driving cessation in patients with dementia was related with older age, female sex, and lower cognitive and functional ability [2,8,9,10]. A longitudinal study suggested the rate of worsening of dementia and functional ability as the specific predictors of driving cessation in patients with dementia [11]. Patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) also have cognitive impairment but with preserved independence in their everyday functional abilities [12]. It can be considered that they present lesser risk during driving than patients with dementia. However, some patients with MCI stop driving due to cognitive problems, and several studies have demonstrated that compared with cognitively intact individuals, patients with MCI have impaired driving skills, such as poor lane and speed control [7,13,14].
Nevertheless, since daily functional ability is not compromised in patients with MCI, it is difficult to know when they should be cautious about driving or when they should stop driving altogether. This difficulty highlights the importance of investigating the driving status and the influential factors for driving cessation in patients with MCI. Despite great interest, little is known about the prevalence of driving cessation in patients with MCI and the characteristics of their cognitive performance.
Therefore, we aimed to (1) assess the prevalence of driving cessation in patients with MCI, (2) the difference in cognitive performance between current and former drivers, and (3) determine the specific cognitive domains that are potential predictors of driving cessation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Subjects

A cross-sectional study was conducted in a memory clinic in the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital in the Republic of Korea. Between January 2015 and September 2016, participants who met the following inclusion criteria were recruited, (1) aged between 51 and 80 years, (2) a diagnosis of MCI according to the diagnostic criteria for MCI due to Alzheimer’s disease of the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association [12] and a Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR) [15] score of 0.5, and (3) had ever driven a car including former and current drivers. Based on a systematic interview, participants were excluded if they had stopped driving but not due to cognitive impairment. All participants or their legal representatives provided written informed consent. The study was conducted in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (IRB Number B-1508/312-307).

2.2. Driving History

Former drivers completed a structured questionnaire about the reason for driving cessation. The answers were categorized into (1) cognitive impairment, such as deficits of attention, judgment, or ability to respond while driving; (2) financial problems; (3) physical problems; (4) the suggestion of family or friends; (5) traffic accident by the patient’s mistake; and (6) traffic accident by the opponent’s mistake. Participants could choose multiple answers and were required to explain the chosen answers in detail, as follows. What kind of physical problem in response to (3), and the reason for the suggestion to cease driving in response to (4). We excluded participants whose reasons for driving cessation were (2) financial problems, (3) physical problems, or (6) traffic accidents caused by an opponent’s mistake, or a combination of these.

2.3. Cognitive Assessment

At the same time as the interview about the driving history, extensive neuropsychological assessments were conducted, which included tests to measure attention, language, verbal and visual memory, visuoconstructive function, and frontal executive function. We used the following tests. The Digit Span Test for attention [16], the Korean version of Boston Naming Test for language [17], Seoul Verbal Learning Test for verbal memory [18], Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT) for visuoconstructive function and visual memory [19], categorical fluency test of the Controlled Oral Word Association Test [20], and color reading of the Stroop test for executive function [21]. The subset scores were converted to standardized scores (Z-scores), which were adjusted for age, sex, and education level. Additionally, we used the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a measure of global cognition [22], CDR Sum-of-Boxes (CDR-SB) to assess clinical severity [15], and the short form of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDpS) [23].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

To compare the demographic data and neuropsychological test scores, we used the Pearson chi-squared test for categorical variables and the Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factor associated with driving cessation in three separate models. A total of 135 participants were included for analysis in the models. In Model 1, demographic characteristics (age, gender, and education level) and global cognitive status (the MMSE and CDR-SB score) were entered as independent variables and driving cessation was entered as the dependent variable. In Model 2, the scores of the neuropsychological assessments were entered as independent variables and driving cessation was entered as the dependent variable. In Model 3, the variables that were significant in Models 1 and 2 (age, gender, and digit span backward test score) were entered as independent variables and driving cessation was entered as the dependent variable. The variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated among the included variables to evaluate multicollinearity. The equations of the models were as follows:
Model 1: Logit (p) = b0 + b1 × age + b2 × gender (female) + b3 × education + b4 × MMSE + b5 × CDR-S
Model 2: Logit (p) = b0 + b1 × Digit span forward + b2 × Digit span backward + b3 × Korean Boston Naming Test + b4 × Seoul verbal learning test (Learning) + b5 × Seoul verbal learning test (Delayed recall) + b6 × Seoul verbal learning test (Recognition) + b7 × Rey complex figure test (Copy) + b8 × Rey complex figure test (Delayed recall) + b9 × Rey complex figure test (Recognition) + b10 × Categorical fluency + b11 × Stroop test colors
Model 3: Logit (p) = b0 + b1 × age + b2 × gender (female) + b3 × Digit span backward
Statistical significance was set at ≤0.05. We used IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) for the analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Subject Characteristics and Reason for Driving Cessation

A total of 137 patients with MCI were recruited in the study. Among them, two patients were excluded from the analysis because they stopped driving due to poor physical condition (stroke and macular degeneration). The median age of the 135 participants was 72 years, and 54 participants (40%) were women. Among them, 93 participants (68.9%) were current drivers and 42 (31.1%) were former drivers. The causes of driving cessation among the former drivers are shown in Table 1. Cognitive impairment, such as deficits of attention, judgment, or the ability to respond when driving, was the most frequent reason. In the interview, we confirmed that the suggestion of family or friends to stop driving was based on the risky driving behavior of the patients.

3.2. Demographic Characteristics and Cognitive Assessment of Current and Former Drivers

The demographic and cognitive characteristics of the current and former drivers are summarized in Table 2. The former drivers were older and there were more women compared with the current drivers. Global cognitive functioning, which was indicated by MMSE score (28 vs. 27 in the current and former drivers, respectively, p = 0.041) and CDR-SB score (1.00 vs. 1.25 in the current and former drivers, respectively, p = 0.017) was poorer and the GDpS score (3 vs. 5 in the current and former drivers, respectively, p = 0.008) which represents depressive symptoms, was higher in the former drivers. From extensive neuropsychological tests, we found that former drivers showed poorer performance in the digit span backward test (−0.89 vs. −0.26, p = 0.029) and categorical fluency test (−0.92 vs. −0.48, p = 0.013) than the current drivers. A tendency to show declined ability in RCFT in terms of delayed recall was observed in the former drivers, but this was not statistically significant (−0.97 vs. −0.70, p = 0.088).

3.3. Predictors Associated with Driving Cessation

Table 3 shows the multivariate logistic regression analysis of the three models. In Model 1, older age (odds ratio (OR), 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.29) and the female gender (OR, 13.01, 95% CI, 4.72–35.88) were significantly associated with driving cessation. In Model 2, the digit span backward test score was significantly associated with driving cessation (OR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.25–0.93). The VIFs were less than 2.737 for all variables in Model 2, indicating a low degree of collinearity. In Model 3, age, female gender, and poor digit span backward test score were all found to increase the risk for driving cessation (OR, 1.17, 95% CI, 1.06–1.28, OR, 14.33, 95% CI, 5.05–40.66, and OR, 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31–0.95, respectively).

4. Discussion

The aims of this study were to investigate the prevalence of driving cessation in patients with MCI, the cognitive functioning of current and former drivers, and determine the specific cognitive domains that are potential predictors of driving cessation. Our results showed that the rate of driving cessation in patients with MCI was 31.1%. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the prevalence of driving cessation in patients with MCI based on extensive neuropsychological tests. Previously, a study reported a 17.2% prevalence of driving cessation in patients with MCI [24]. This low value compared to our result could be due to different diagnostic criteria for MCI or different profiles of detailed cognitive domains of the studied population. Another study with cognitively impaired but not demented older adults reported that 13.1% of former drivers showed impairment in a single cognitive domain and 36.5% showed impairment in multiple cognitive domains [25]. In addition, Vaughan et al. reported that the rate of former drivers among older women with MCI was 32.5% [26]. However, studies of the prevalence of driving in patients with MCI are scarce, and this issue deserves more attention since patients with MCI may lack awareness of their possibly risky driving behavior.
Our Model 1 multivariate analysis showed that older age and female gender were associated with driving cessation, which is concordant with previous reports. This gender effect has been explained by women being more engaged in self-regulating their driving [27,28], by women driving less frequently [29], and by the perception of driving being related more with masculinity [30].
In the Model 2 multivariate analysis, a poor score in the digit span backward test was associated with an increased risk of driving cessation, indicating that attention is a potential predictor of driving cessation in patients with MCI. In the Model 3, poor digit span backward test performance remained a significant risk factor for driving cessation independent of age and female gender.
The neuropsychological characteristics of cognitively impaired adults who have ceased driving have been studied mostly in patients with dementia. Although various cognitive domains are involved in driving ability, visuospatial function and attention are particularly important for driving performance [31,32,33,34,35]. In contrast, there has been little research into the cognitive functioning of patients with MCI regarding driving. According to a previous study, older women aged 65–79 years having MCI with functional limitations in instrumental activities of daily living, such as household tasks or grasping situation, were less likely to continue driving [26]. In a simulation study, poor driving skill in patients with MCI during a car-following task was correlated with poor Trail Making Test Part B score that represents visual attention and executive function [36].
In our study, it is of note that the digit span backward test score was predictive of driving cessation in patients with MCI. The digit span backward test is considered a useful tool to assess attention and working memory [16]. Working memory is the ability to maintain and manipulate information over a limited time [37]. Engle et al. stated that working memory is not defined by the storage or memory but by the capacity for controlled and sustained attention in the face of distraction [38]. This working memory capacity is important for maintaining goal-directed behavior in the presence of interference, such as while driving [39]. Among the various brain regions activated during working memory, the frontoparietal neural network is a common pathway involved in working memory that is independent of the type of information [40].
Driving is a cognitively challenging activity that requires fast and precise processing of new information and decision-making. Adapting to dynamically changing situations in the road traffic environment and integrating the new information demands a certain level of working memory capacity [41]. Several studies have shown the relation between working memory and driving. Increased working memory load while driving leads to impairment in lane changing performance [42] and increased response latency in braking reactions [43]. Functional studies have demonstrated that increased working memory load during driving is related to neural activity in the inferior frontal area [44,45]. The necessity of working memory capacity for safe driving is in line with our study’s finding that there was a significant association between the poor digit span backward test score and driving cessation. Furthermore, the predictive value of the digit span backward test score could be clinically applicable during consultation with patients having MCI with an aim to assess their driving performance. In a study with cognitively impaired but not demented older adults, over 60% of current drivers had restricted their driving, and ~98% of current drivers considered to restrict or quit driving in the future under certain circumstances, with the most popular reasons being doctor’s advice and danger to others [25]. This suggests that consultation about driving cessation based on objective assessment is important in patients with MCI.
Some limitations of this study are that the sample size was small and that the study was conducted in a single center. In addition, the participants were patients who visited the tertiary medical center, and they may differ from patients with MCI in a community-based population. Further, our result was not corrected for multiple comparisons. When multiple hypotheses are tested on the same issue, individual p-values of the tests may not be ideal indicators of actual statistical significance [46]. However, adjustment for multiple tests increases the likelihood of type II errors and the interpretation of the finding depends on the number of tests performed. Thus, merely describing the tests of significance that were performed is also a way of dealing with multiple comparisons in an exploratory study [47]. Moreover, even though we confirmed in the interview about driving history that the driving cessation is due to cognitive decline, there is the possibility that cognitive decline progressed after the driving cessation. In a further longitudinal study, we could overcome this by evaluating the association between the incidence of driving cessation and the change in cognitive function at baseline and the follow-up.
In future studies, it would be meaningful to investigate whether our results correlate with the results of an on-road assessment. A recent meta-analysis suggested that patients with a CDR score of 0.5 showed an 11–12% failure rate in the on-road assessment [48]. Understanding the correlation between attention ability and the on-road assessment could provide supporting evidence for driver assessment in patients with MCI.

5. Conclusions

In summary, our study demonstrated that the prevalence of driving cessation in patients with MCI is 31.1% and that driving cessation is associated with impairment in the digit span backward test, which reflects poor attention and working memory. Despite the potential limitations, this study supports the importance of working memory, among other cognitive domains, for safe driving and the findings will help clinicians counsel patients with MCI about their driving ability.

Author Contributions

J.-M.P.: Statistical analysis, interpretation of the data, and drafting the article. M.J.K.: Acquisition of the data, interpretation of the data, and review of the manuscript. S.K. (Sohee Kim): Study concept, acquisition of the data, and analysis plan. M.J.B.: Study concept and acquisition of the data. M.J.W.: Study concept, acquisition of the data, and guidance for the statistical analysis. S.K. (SangYun Kim): Study concept and review of the planned analysis and the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Foley, D.J.; Masaki, K.H.; Ross, G.W. Driving cessation in older men with incident dementia. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2000, 48, 928–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Herrmann, N.; Rapoport, M.J.; Sambrook, R.; Hébert, R.; McCracken, P.; Robillard, A. Predictors of driving cessation in mild-to-moderate dementia. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2006, 175, 591–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Pachana, N.A.; Jetten, J.; Gustafsson, L.; Pachana, N.A.; Liddle, J. To be or not to be (an older driver): Social identity theory and driving cessation in later life. Ageing Soc. 2017, 37, 1597–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Marottoli, R.A.; de Leon, C.F.M.; Glass, T.A.; Williams, C.S.; Cooney, L.M., Jr.; Berkman, L.F. Consequences of driving cessation: Decreased out-of-home activity levels. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2000, 55, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Duchek, J.M.; Carr, D.B.; Hunt, L.; Roe, C.M.; Xiong, C.; Shah, K.; Morris, J.C. Longitudinal driving performance in early-stage dementia of the Alzheimer type. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2003, 51, 1342–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Drachman, D.A.; Swearer, J.M. Driving and Alzheimer’s disease: The risk of crashes. Neurology 1993, 43, 2448–2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Frittelli, C.; Borghetti, D.; Iudice, G.; Bonanni, E.; Maestri, M.; Tognoni, G.; Pasquali, L.; Iudice, A. Effects of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment on driving ability: A controlled clinical study by simulated driving test. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2009, 24, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Seiler, S.; Schmidt, H.; Lechner, A.; Benke, T.; Sanin, G.; Ransmayr, G.; Lehner, R.; Dal-Bianco, P.; Santer, P.; Linortner, P.; et al. Driving cessation and dementia: Results of the prospective registry on dementia in Austria (PRODEM). PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Talbot, A.; Bruce, I.; Cunningham, C.J.; Coen, R.F.; Lawlor, B.A.; Coakley, D.; Walsh, J.B.; O’Neill, D. Driving cessation in patients attending a memory clinic. Age Ageing 2015, 34, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Adler, G.; Kuskowski, M. Driving cessation in older men with dementia. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 2003, 17, 68–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Connors, M.H.; Ames, D.; Woodward, M.; Brodaty, H. Predictors of driving cessation in dementia: Baseline characteristics and trajectories of disease progression. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 2018, 32, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Albert, M.S.; DeKosky, S.T.; Dickson, D.; Dubois, B.; Feldman, H.H.; Fox, N.C.; Gamst, A.; Holtzman, D.M.; Jagust, W.J.; Petersen, R.C.; et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011, 7, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wadley, V.G.; Okonkwo, O.; Crowe, M.; Vance, D.E.; Elgin, J.M.; Ball, K.K.; Owsley, C. Mild cognitive impairment and everyday function: An investigation of driving performance. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry Neurol. 2009, 22, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hird, M.A.; Egeto, P.; Fischer, C.E.; Naglie, G.; Schweizer, T.A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of on-road simulator and cognitive driving assessment in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2016, 53, 713–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Morris, J.C. The clinical dementia rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology 1993, 43, 2412–2414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wechsler, D. Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised; The Psychological Corporation: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim, H.; Na, D.L. BRIEF REPORT normative data on the Korean version of the Boston naming test. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 1999, 21, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kang, Y.; Na, D. Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery; Human Brain Research & Consulting Co.: Seoul, Korea, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  19. Shin, M.S.; Park, S.Y.; Park, S.R.; Seol, S.H.; Kwon, J.S. Clinical and empirical applications of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test. Nat. Protoc. 2006, 1, 892–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Lee, J.H.; Kang, Y.W.; Jin, J.H.; Na, D.L.; Park, J.S. A normative study of the Korean version of Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) in the elderly. Korean J. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 19, 385–392. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, J.; Kang, Y.; Na, D. Efficiencies of stroop interference indexes in healthy older adults and dementia patients. Korean J. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 19, 807–818. [Google Scholar]
  22. Folstein, M.; Folstein, S.; McHugh, P. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 1975, 12, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yesavage, J. Geriatric depression scale. Psychopharm. Bull. 1988, 24, 709–711. [Google Scholar]
  24. Connors, M.H.; Ames, D.; Woodward, M.; Brodaty, H. Mild cognitive impairment and driving cessation: A 3-year longitudinal study. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2017, 44, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kowalski, K.; Love, J.; Tuokko, H.; MacDonald, S.; Hultsch, D.; Strauss, E. The influence of cognitive impairment with no dementia on driving restriction and cessation in older adults. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 49, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Vaughan, L.; Hogan, P.E.; Rapp, S.R.; Dugan, E.; Marottoli, R.A.; Snively, B.M.; Shumaker, S.A. Driving with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: Cognitive test performance and proxy report of daily life function in older women HHS public access. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2015, 63, 1774–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Wong, I.Y.; Smith, S.S.; Sullivan, K.A. Psychosocial factors significantly predict driving self-regulation in Australian older adults. Australas J. Ageing 2016, 35, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gwyther, H.; Holland, C. The effect of age, gender and attitudes on self-regulation in driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ross, L.A.; Clay, O.J.; Edwards, J.D.; Ball, K.K.; Wadley, V.G.; Vance, D.E.; Cissell, G.M.; Roenker, D.L.; Joyce, J.J. Do older drivers at-risk for crashes modify their driving over time? J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2009, 64, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Siren, A.; Hakamies-Blomqvist, L. Sense and sensibility. A narrative study of older women’s car driving. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2005, 8, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Reger, M.A.; Welsh, R.K.; Watson, G.S.; Cholerton, B.; Baker, L.D.; Craft, S. The relationship between neuropsychological functioning and driving ability in dementia: A meta-analysis. Neuropsychology 2004, 18, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Choi, S.H.; Lee, J.; Kim, S.J.; Choi, J.Y.; Kwon, J.W.; Yoon, BN.; Kim, J.H.; Yoon, B.; Yang, YS.; Kim, SY.; et al. Driving in patients with dementia: A CREDOS (Clinical Research Center for Dementia of South Korea) study. Dement. Neurocognit. Disord. 2014, 13, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Aksan, N.; Anderson, S.W.; Dawson, J.D.; Johnson, A.M.; Uc, E.Y.; Rizzo, M. Cognitive functioning predicts driver safety on road tests 1 and 2 years later. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2012, 60, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hoggarth, P.A.; Innes, C.R.H.; Dalrymple-Alford, J.C.; Jones, R.D. Predicting on-road assessment pass and fail outcomes in older drivers with cognitive impairment using a battery of computerized sensory-motor and cognitive tests. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2013, 61, 2192–2198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bennett, J.M.; Chekaluk, E.; Batchelor, J. cognitive tests and determining fitness to drive in dementia: A systematic review. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2016, 64, 1904–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kawano, N.; Iwamoto, K.; Ebe, K.; Suzuki, Y.; Hasegawa, J.; Ukai, K.; Umegaki, H.; Iidaka, T.; Ozaki, N. Effects of mild cognitive impairment on driving performance in older drivers. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2012, 60, 1379–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Eriksson, J.; Vogel, E.K.; Lansner, A.; Bergstrom, F.; Nyberg, L. neurocognitive architecture of working memory. Neuron 2015, 88, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Engle, R.W.; Kane, M.J.; Tuholski, S.W. Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control; Miyake, A., Shah, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 102–134. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lavie, N. Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 19, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rottschy, C.; Langner, R.; Dogan, I.; Reetz, K.; Laird, A.R.; Schulz, J.B.; Fox, P.T.; Eickhoff, S.B. Modelling neural correlates of working memory: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. Neuroimage 2012, 60, 830–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Groreger, J.A. Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to A Complex Everyday Task; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ross, V.; Jongen, E.M.M.; Wang, W.; Brijs, T.; Brijs, K.; Ruiter, R.A.; Wets, G. Investigating the influence of working memory capacity when driving behavior is combined with cognitive load: An LCT study of young novice drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 62, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lamble, D.; Kauranen, T.; Laakso, M.; Summala, H. Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: Safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1999, 31, 617–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Unni, A.; Ihme, K.; Jipp, M.; Rieger, J.W. Assessing the driver’s current level of working memory load with high density functional near-infrared spectroscopy: A realistic driving simulator study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schweizer, T.A.; Kan, K.; Hung, Y.; Tam, F.; Naglie, G.; Graham, S.J. Brain activity during driving with distraction: An immersive fMRI study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Aickin, M.; Gensler, H. Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: The Bonferroni vs. Holm methods. Am. J. Public Health 1996, 86, 726–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Perneger, T.V. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 1998, 316, 1236–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Chee, J.N.; Rapoport, M.J.; Molnar, F.; Herrmann, N.; O’Neill, D.; Marottoli, R.; Mitchell, S.; Tant, M.; Dow, J.; Ayotte, D.; et al. Update on the risk of motor vehicle collision or driving impairment with dementia: A collaborative international systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2017, 25, 1376–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Reasons for driving cessation.
Table 1. Reasons for driving cessation.
ReasonsNumber of Patients
1. Cognitive impairment, such as deficits in attention, judgment, or the ability to respond when driving34
2. Financial problems0
3. Physical problems2
4. Suggestion of family or friends3
5. Accident was due to the patient’s mistake 6
6. Accident was due to the opponent’s mistake0
Table
Table 2. Demographic characteristics and cognitive assessments of current and former drivers with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
Table 2. Demographic characteristics and cognitive assessments of current and former drivers with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
VariableCurrent Driver (n = 93)Former Driver (n = 42)p-Value
Age71.00 (65.00–75.00)73.00 (69.00–76.00)0.017
Female, n (%)25 (26.88)29 (69.05)<0.001
Education, years13.50 (10.00–16.00)16.00 (12.00–16.00)0.115
Amnestic MCI, n (%)46 (49.46)22 (52.38)0.898
Cognitive Assessment
MMSE (range 0–30)28 (26–29)27 (26–28)0.041
CDR-SB (range 0–9)1.0 (0.5–4.5)1.25 (0.5–2.0)0.017
GDpS (range 0–15)3 (0.5–5.5)5 (2–7.5)0.008
Digit Span Forward Test0.03 (−0.79–0.74)−0.17 (−0.97–0.58)0.431
Digit Span Backward Test−0.26 (−0.91–0.42)−0.89 (−1.18–−0.04)0.029
Korean Boston Naming Test−0.44 (−1.09–0.37)−0.81 (−1.35–0.12)0.139
SVLT Learning−0.89 (−1.28–−0.28)−0.76 (−1.06–−0.42)0.285
SVLT Delayed recall−0.99 (−1.37–−0.12)−1.13 (−1.41–−0.6)0.510
SVLT Recognition−0.63 (−1.22–0.13)−0.61 (−1.32–0.32)0.896
RCFT Copy−0.57 (−1.18–0.16)−0.29(−1.28–0.45)0.713
RCFT Delayed recall−0.70 (−1.24–0.03)−0.97 (−1.37–−0.36)0.088
RCFT Recognition−0.64 (−1.22–0.1)−0.25 (−0.74–0.16)0.206
Categorical fluency−0.48 (−1.09–0.41)−0.92 (−1.28–−0.17)0.013
Stroop Colors Test−0.40 (−1.17–0.7)−0.78 (−1.36–0.4)0.234
Data are presented as the median (interquartile range) unless otherwise specified. MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; CDR-SB, Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes; GDpS, Geriatric Depression Scale score; SVLT, Seoul Verbal Learning Test; RCFT, Rey Complex Figure Test.
Table
Table 3. Binary Logistic Regression Analysis to assess driving cessation-associated predictors.
Table 3. Binary Logistic Regression Analysis to assess driving cessation-associated predictors.
VariableOdds Ratio95% Confidence Intervalp-Value
Model 1
Age1.171.07–1.290.001
Female13.014.72–35.88<0.001
Education0.920.80–1.060.295
MMSE1.090.82–1.450.531
CDR-SB1.690.91–3.130.092
Model 2
Digit Span Forward Test1.170.65–2.120.583
Digit Span Backward Test0.490.25–0.930.032
Korean Boston Naming Test0.860.51–1.440.568
SVLT Learning2.050.89–4.710.089
SVLT Delayed Recall0.560.22–1.400.218
SVLT Recognition1.330.69–2.540.386
RCFT Copy1.600.92–2.800.095
RCFT Delayed Recall0.490.24–1.000.052
RCFT Recognition1.680.92–3.060.088
Categorical Fluency0.570.30–1.070.083
Stroop Colors Test0.910.55–1.530.742
Model 3
Age1.171.06–1.280.001
Female14.335.05–40.66<0.001
Digit Span Backward Test0.540.31–0.950.032
MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; CDR-SB, Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes; SVLT, Seoul Verbal Learning Test; RCFT, Rey Complex Figure Test.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pyun, J.-M.; Kang, M.J.; Kim, S.; Baek, M.J.; Wang, M.J.; Kim, S. Driving Cessation and Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7120545

AMA Style

Pyun J-M, Kang MJ, Kim S, Baek MJ, Wang MJ, Kim S. Driving Cessation and Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2018; 7(12):545. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7120545

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pyun, Jung-Min, Min Ju Kang, Sohee Kim, Min Jae Baek, Min Jeong Wang, and SangYun Kim. 2018. "Driving Cessation and Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment" Journal of Clinical Medicine 7, no. 12: 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7120545

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop