The Influence of Hearing Impairment on Driving Avoidance Among a Large Cohort of Older Drivers.

As people age, some of the commonly experienced psychomotor, visual, and cognitive declines can interfere with the ability to safely drive, often leading to situational avoidance of challenging driving situations. The effect of hearing impairment on these avoidance behaviors has not been comprehensively studied. Data from the American Automobile Association (AAA) Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) study were used to assess the effect of hearing impairment on driving avoidance, using three measures of hearing. Results indicated that hearing loss plays a complex role in driving avoidance, and that an objective hearing measure was a stronger predictor than hearing aid use and self-rated hearing. Greater hearing impairment was related to less nighttime and freeway driving, more trips farther than 15 mi from home, and lower odds of avoiding peak driving times. The moderating influence of hearing on both vision and cognition is also discussed, along with study implications and future research.

Improving Safe Mobility: An Assessment of Vehicles and Technologies among a Large Cohort of Older Drivers.

Evidence suggests that older driver safety may be improved by good vehicle maintenance, in-vehicle advanced technologies, and proper vehicle adaptations. This study explored the prevalence of several measures of vehicle maintenance and damage among older drivers through inspection of their vehicles. We also investigated the prevalence of in-vehicle technologies and aftermarket adaptations. Vehicle inspections were conducted by trained research staff using an objective, standardized procedure. This procedure, developed by a multidisciplinary team of researchers, was based on a review of inspection checklists used by automobile dealerships and the project team's expertise. The study used baseline data from vehicles of 2988 participants in the multi-site Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) study. Among this cohort, vehicles were well maintained, had little damage, and contained a range of advanced technologies but few aftermarket adaptations. Implications of study findings for occupational therapy practice are discussed.

Design and implementation of a parent guide for coaching teen drivers.

INTRODUCTION: Teens beginning to drive independently are at significant increased risk of motor-vehicle crashes relative to their other life stages. There is, however, little guidance for parents as to how best to supervise learning to drive. METHOD: This study sought to undertake an informed approach to development and implementation of a Parent Guide. We included a multi-stage development process, using theory, findings from a Delphi-study of young driver traffic-safety experts, and parent focus groups. This process informed the development of a Guide that was then evaluated for feasibility and acceptability, comparing a group that received the Guide with a control group of parent and teen dyads. Both members of the dyads were surveyed at baseline, again at the approximate time teens would be licensed to drive independently (post-test), and again three months later. RESULTS: We found no difference in the proportion of teens who became licensed between those given the new Guide and control teens (who received the state-developed booklet); that is the Guide did not appear to promote or delay licensure. Teens in the Guide group reported that their parents were more likely to use the provided resource compared with control teens. Responses indicated that the Parent Guide was favorably viewed, that it was easy to use, and that the logging of hours was a useful inclusion. Parents noted that the Guide helped them manage their stress, provided strategies to keep calm, and helped with planning practice. In contrast, control parents noted that their booklet helped explain rules. Among licensed teens there was no significant difference in self-reported risky driving at the three-month follow-up. We discuss the challenges in providing motivation for parents to move beyond a set number of practice hours to provide diversity of driving practice.

Using naturalistic driving data to better understand the driving exposure and patterns of older drivers.

OBJECTIVE: The aging of the population in the United States and elsewhere has brought increasing attention to the issue of safe driving and mobility among older adults. The overall objective of this research was to use naturalistic data collection to better understand driving exposure and driving patterns, 2 important contributors to crash risk. METHODS: Data came from a study conducted at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute as part of the Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety System (IVBSS) program. A total of 108 randomly sampled drivers took part, with the sample stratified by age and sex. The age groups examined were 20 to 30 (younger), 40 to 50 (middle-aged), and 60 to 70 years old (older). Sixteen late-model Honda Accords were used as research vehicles and were driven by participants as their personal vehicles over the study period. Roughly the first 2 weeks of vehicle use comprised the baseline driving period, during which the IVBSS technologies were turned off (i.e., no warnings were presented to the drivers) but all onboard data were collected. For this article, only data from the baseline period were analyzed to limit any confounding effects that the safety technology may have had on driving behavior. RESULTS: Results indicated that when looking at age independent of sex, older drivers (age 60-70) took fewer trips, drove fewer minutes, were less likely to drive at night, and had fewer high decelerations and speeding events than the youngest age group (20-30). They were also less likely to drive during peak morning traffic and on high-speed roads than their middle-age counterparts (40-50). Across all age groups, there were few differences by sex, with the exception that females drove fewer miles and fewer minutes and had fewer high decelerations than males. When both age and sex were taken into account, it was often the group of females age 60-70 that appeared to account for many of the age and sex differences found in driving exposure and patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Future research in this area would benefit from larger scale and longitudinal study designs so that changes in driving exposure and patterns over time among large samples of drivers could be examined.

Prevalence, attitudes, and knowledge of in-vehicle technologies and vehicle adaptations among older drivers.

The purpose of the present study was to gain a better understanding of the types of in-vehicle technologies being used by older drivers as well as older drivers' use, learning, and perceptions of safety related to these technologies among a large cohort of older drivers at multiple sites in the United States. A secondary purpose was to explore the prevalence of aftermarket vehicle adaptations and how older adults go about making adaptations and how they learn to use them. The study utilized baseline questionnaire data from 2990 participants from the Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) study. Fifteen in-vehicle technologies and 12 aftermarket vehicle adaptations were investigated. Overall, 57.2% of participants had at least one advanced technology in their primary vehicle. The number of technologies in a vehicle was significantly related to being male, having a higher income, and having a higher education level. The majority of respondents learned to use these technologies on their own, with "figured-it-out-myself" being reported by 25%-75% of respondents across the technologies. Overall, technologies were always used about 43% of the time, with wide variability among the technologies. Across all technologies, nearly 70% of respondents who had these technologies believed that they made them a safer driver. With regard to vehicle adaptations, less than 9% of respondents had at least one vehicle adaptation present, with the number of adaptations per vehicle ranging from 0 to 4. A large majority did not work with a professional to make or learn about the aftermarket vehicle adaptation.

Translation to Primary Care of an Effective Teen Safe Driving Program for Parents.

Addressing teen driver crashes, this study adapted an effective Checkpoints(TM) program for parents of teen drivers for dissemination by primary care practitioners (PCPs) and the web; distributed the PCP/web program through pediatric practices; and examined dissemination to/implementation by parents. The website, youngDRIVERparenting.org, and brief intervention protocol were developed. PCPs delivered interventions and materials to parents, referred them to the website, and completed follow-up surveys. Google Analytics assessed parents' website use. Most PCPs reported delivering interventions with fidelity, and thought the program important and feasible. Brief interventions/website referrals, averaging 4.4 minutes, were delivered to 3465 (87%) of 3990 eligible parents by 133 PCPs over an 18-week average. Website visits (1453) were made by 42% of parents, who spent on average 3:53 minutes viewing 4.2 topics. This program costs little (its website, training and promotional materials are available) and could be one component of a comprehensive approach to reducing teen driver crashes.

Do as I say, not as I do: Distracted driving behavior of teens and their parents.

INTRODUCTION: Driver distraction is an important contributor to crash risk. Teenage driver distraction can be influenced by the attitudes and behaviors of parents. This study examined teens' and their parents' engagement in distracting behavior while driving. METHOD: Survey data were collected from a national sample of 403 parent-teen dyads using random-digit dialing telephone interviews. RESULTS: Results demonstrated few parent or teen sex differences in distracting behavior engagement while driving, or in their perceptions of each others' behavior. Parents and teens' frequencies of distracting behavior engagement were positively correlated. Parents' and teens' perceptions of each others' distracting behavior engagement while driving exceeded their own selfreports. Finally, the likelihood that teens reported engaging in distracting behavior while driving was more strongly associated with their perceptions of their parents' distracting behavior than by parents' self reports of their own behavior. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that parents' examples of driving behavior are an important influence on teen driving behavior, but potentially more important are teens' perceptions of their parents' behaviors.

Social norms and risk perception: predictors of distracted driving behavior among novice adolescent drivers.

PURPOSE: Adolescent drivers are at elevated crash risk due to distracted driving behavior (DDB). Understanding parental and peer influences on adolescent DDB may aid future efforts to decrease crash risk. We examined the influence of risk perception, sensation seeking, as well as descriptive and injunctive social norms on adolescent DDB using the theory of normative social behavior. METHODS: 403 adolescents (aged 16-18 years) and their parents were surveyed by telephone. Survey instruments measured self-reported sociodemographics, DDB, sensation seeking, risk perception, descriptive norms (perceived parent DDB, parent self-reported DDB, and perceived peer DDB), and injunctive norms (parent approval of DDB and peer approval of DDB). Hierarchical multiple linear regression was used to predict the influence of descriptive and injunctive social norms, risk perception, and sensation seeking on adolescent DDB. RESULTS: 92% of adolescents reported regularly engaging in DDB. Adolescents perceived that their parents and peers participated in DDB more frequently than themselves. Adolescent risk perception, parent DDB, perceived parent DDB, and perceived peer DDB were predictive of adolescent DDB in the regression model, but parent approval and peer approval of DDB were not predictive. Risk perception and parental DDB were stronger predictors among males, whereas perceived parental DDB was stronger for female adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent risk perception and descriptive norms are important predictors of adolescent distracted driving. More study is needed to understand the role of injunctive normative influences on adolescent DDB. Effective public health interventions should address parental role modeling, parental monitoring of adolescent driving, and social marketing techniques that correct misconceptions of norms related to around driver distraction and crash risk.

Effectiveness of a brief parent-directed teen driver safety intervention (Checkpoints) delivered by driver education instructors.

BACKGROUND: The Checkpoints program (Checkpoints) uses a Parent-Teen Driving Agreement (PTDA) to help parents monitor teens' driving, and has shown efficacy in increasing parental restrictions on teens' driving and decreasing teens' risky driving. In previous trials, research staff administered Checkpoints. This study examined the effectiveness of Checkpoints when delivered by driver educators. It was hypothesized that Checkpoints would result in more PTDA use, greater PTDA limits on higher risk driving situations, and less high-risk driving. METHODS: Eight trained driving instructors were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups in a group randomized trial. Instructors enrolled 148 parent-teen dyads (intervention = 99, control = 49); 35% of those eligible. Intervention parents joined teens for a 30-minute Checkpoints session during driver education. The session included a video, persuasive messages, discussion, and PTDA initiation. Teens completed four surveys: baseline, licensure, and 3- and 6-months post-licensure. RESULTS: Intervention teens were more likely to report that they used a PTDA (OR= 15.92, p = .004) and had restrictions on driving with teen passengers (OR = 8.52, p = .009), on weekend nights (OR = 8.71, p = .021), on high-speed roads (OR = 3.56, p = .02), and in bad weather (b = .51, p = .05) during the first six months of licensure. There were no differences in offenses or crashes at six months, but intervention teens reported less high-risk driving (p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Although challenges remain to encourage greater parent participation, Checkpoints conducted by driver education instructors resulted in more use of PTDAs, greater restrictions on high-risk driving, and less high-risk driving. Including Checkpoints in driver education parent meetings/classes has potential to enhance teen driver safety.

Efficacy of a brief group parent-teen intervention in driver education to reduce teenage driver injury risk: a pilot study.

The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of an adapted Checkpoints Program designed to increase parental limits on novice teen independent driving under high-risk conditions. Twenty-seven class sessions with a minimum of 5 dyads each were delivered in driver education to 231 parent-teen dyads. Entire driving school classes were randomized to Checkpoints Program or comparison group sessions, both led by a trained health educator. At licensure, compared with parents in the comparison group, treatment parents had increased awareness of teen driving risk and were more likely to have completed a parent-teen driving agreement and met Checkpoints recommendations for restrictions on teen driving in inclement weather and road types. They were also marginally more likely to have met Checkpoints restrictions on driving with teen passengers. This study indicates that it is feasible to implement the Checkpoints Program in driver education with positive effects on parent management practices.

Longitudinal examination of underage drinking and subsequent drinking and risky driving.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol use, alcohol misuse, and risky driving from adolescence into young adulthood were compared by drinking onset age. METHODS: Surveys were administered in Grades 5/6, 6/7, 7/8, 10, 12, and at approximately age 23. Participants were placed into Drinking Onset groups based on self-reported alcohol use frequency on the adolescent surveys. Driving records were examined in three age periods: under 21, 21-25, and 26+. RESULTS: The earliest drinking initiators reported higher alcohol use and misuse on each survey, and were more likely to have risky driving offenses before age 21 and to have alcohol driving offenses in all three age periods. DISCUSSION: The earliest drinking initiators engaged in risky drinking behavior and risky driving behavior that was consistently higher than those with later drinking initiation, beginning in adolescence and persisting well into young adulthood.

A randomized controlled trial of an emergency department-based interactive computer program to prevent alcohol misuse among injured adolescents.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an emergency department (ED)-based laptop computer intervention reduces the normative age-related increase in alcohol misuse compared with standard of care. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted from October 11, 1999, to April 14, 2001, in a community teaching hospital and university medical center. Subjects were aged 14 to 18 years and with a minor injury. Controls and intervention participants completed a computer-based questionnaire. Intervention participants also completed a laptop-based interactive computer program to affect alcohol misuse. Main outcome measures were Alcohol Misuse Index (Amidx) and binge-drinking episodes. Follow-up occurred by telephone at 3 and 12 months. Analysis included repeated-measures analysis of variance (alpha=0.05; power 0.80; effect size 0.10). RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-nine participants were randomized to the intervention group, and 326 participants were randomized to the control group. Two hundred ninety-five (89.7%) intervention subjects and 285 (87.4%) control subjects completed 3- and 12-month follow-ups. For intervention and control groups, respectively, mean age was 16.0 and 15.9 years and men composed 66.8% and 66.3% of the groups; Amidx scores were 2.2 and 2.0; binge-drinking episodes were 1.2 and 1.0. Outcomes for intervention and control, respectively, were Amidx (3 months) 1.5 and 1.4; Amidx (12 months) 1.8 and 2.1; binge drinking (3 months) 0.9 and 0.8; and binge drinking (12 months) 1.4 and 1.2. Overall, there were no significant effects (effect size 0.04). No detrimental effects were noted. Subgroup analysis suggested that the intervention may have an effect among subjects with experience drinking and driving (5% of the sample). CONCLUSION: The intervention was not effective in decreasing alcohol misuse among the study population. Further research will be required to determine effectiveness among the subgroup of adolescent minor injury patients who have experience drinking and driving.