Department of Transportation vs self-reported data on motor vehicle collisions and driving convictions for stroke survivors: do they agree?

OBJECTIVE: Research on stroke survivors' driving safety has typically used either self-reports or government records, but the extent to which the 2 may differ is not known. We compared government records and self-reports of motor vehicle collisions and driving convictions in a sample of stroke survivors. METHODS: The 56 participants were originally recruited for a prospective study on driving and community re-integration post-stroke; the study population consisted of moderately impaired stroke survivors without severe communication disorders who had been referred for a driving assessment. The driving records of the 56 participants for the 5 years before study entry and the 1-year study period were acquired with written consent from the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), Canada. Self-reports of collisions and convictions were acquired via a semistructured interview and then compared with the MTO records. RESULTS: Forty-three participants completed the study. For 7 (13.5%) the MTO records did not match the self-reports regarding collision involvement, and for 9 (17.3%) the MTO records did not match self-reports regarding driving convictions. The kappa coefficient for the correlation between MTO records and self-reports was 0.52 for collisions and 0.47 for convictions (both in the moderate range of agreement). When both sources of data were consulted, up to 56 percent more accidents and up to 46 percent more convictions were identified in the study population in the 5 years before study entry compared to when either source was used alone. CONCLUSION: In our population of stroke survivors, self-reports of motor vehicle collisions and driving convictions differed from government records. In future studies, the use of both government and self-reported data would ensure a more accurate picture of driving safety post-stroke.

Driving and reintegration into the community in patients after stroke.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between driving versus not driving and community integration after stroke. Much research on patients who drive after experiencing a stroke has focused on driving assessment protocols; little attention has been given to the implications of assessment outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Six driving evaluation centers in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-three community-dwelling patients who were referred for a driving assessment after they experienced a stroke. METHODS: Data on demographics, living circumstances, health status, driving habits, and driving history were gathered via a semistructured interview and various questionnaires administered on 3 occasions: study entry (> or =1 month after stroke; n = 53), 3 months (n = 44), and 1 year (n = 43). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Reintegration into the community at 1 year, as evaluated with the Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNLI). RESULTS: The participants had sustained a stroke an average of 12.3 months before study entry. Two subjects were driving at study entry. At 1 year, 28 (65%) of 43 subjects had passed their driving test and had resumed/continued driving. Nondrivers had a significantly lower mean RNLI score than drivers. Subjects who were not driving at study entry but had resumed driving by 1 year had a significant increase in RNLI score (P = .011). Driving was significantly associated with community integration after adjustment for concomitant health status (P < .001). Driving and health status were associated with community integration at 1 year, accounting for 32% of the variance in RNLI score. CONCLUSIONS: Driving after stroke was significantly associated with community integration in patients after adjustment for health status (P < .001). Community decision-makers may decide to use the study results when determining the transportation needs of stroke survivors who self-limit their driving because of weather, time of day, or distance concerns.