Driving self-restriction and age: A study of emergency department patients

BACKGROUND: Driving self-restriction is well-documented among older drivers but might also occur among younger drivers. Little is known about the driving patterns of emergency department (ED) patients, who may be a high-risk population for motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). We sought to compare the driving patterns and MVCs of younger and older adult ED patients in order to inform development of injury prevention interventions in EDs. METHODS: We surveyed English-speaking younger adult (age 25–64) and older adult (age ≥65) ED patients, excluding non-drivers and those who were cognitively-impaired or too sick to participate. We compared drivers by age group and used logistic regression with adjustment for driving frequency to examine factors associated with driving self-restriction. RESULTS: Of those eligible, 82% (n = 178) of younger adult and 91% (n = 134) of older adult patients participated; approximately half were women. Similar proportions of younger and older adult patients reported driving everyday/almost everyday (80%) but also self-restricting driving in inclimate weather (48%), heavy traffic (27%), in unfamiliar places (21%), when travelling with passengers (1.6%) or when alone (1.3%). Fewer younger adult than older adult patients avoided driving at night (22% versus 49%) or on highways (6.7% versus 26%). In multivariable logistic regression, factors significantly associated self-imposed driving restriction in ≥1 driving situation were female gender (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.40; 95% CI 1.42-4.05) and ever feeling “confused, nervous or uncomfortable” while driving (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.03-3.39). There was a non-significant trend for differences in proportions between younger adult (11%) and older adult (6.8%) drivers reporting ≥1 MVC as a driver in the past 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Similar proportions of younger and older adult ED patients self-restrict driving, albeit in different situations, which has implications for behavioral interventions for injury prevention and for education of patients and medical providers. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40621-014-0018-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Gun Access and Safety Practices among Older Adults

Background. Given high rates of gun ownership among older adults, geriatric providers can assess firearm safety practices using a “5 Ls” approach: Locked; Loaded; Little children; feeling Low; and Learned owner. This study describes gun access and the “5 Ls” among US older adults. Methods. Data on the “5 Ls” from the Second Injury Control and Risk Survey (ICARIS-2), a national telephone survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, were analyzed. Weighted variables were used to generate national estimates regarding prevalence of gun ownership and associated gun safety among older adults (≥55 years). Results. Of 2939 older adults, 39% (95% CI 37%–42%) reported ≥1 gun stored at home. Among those with guns at home, 21% (95% CI 18–24%) stored guns loaded and unlocked; 9.2% (95% CI 6.6–12%) had ≥1 child in household; 5.1% (95% CI 3.5–6.8%) reported past-year suicidal ideation and 3.6% (95% CI 2.1–5.2%) reported history of a suicide attempt; and 55% (95% CI 51–59%) stated that ≥1 adult had attended firearm safety workshop. Conclusion. Some older adults may be at elevated risk of firearm injury because of storage practices, suicidal thoughts, or limited safety training. Future work should assess effective approaches to reduce the risk of gun-related injuries among older adults

An Interactive Web-Based Lethal Means Safety Decision Aid for Suicidal Adults (Lock to Live): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Counseling to reduce access to lethal means such as firearms and medications is recommended for suicidal adults but does not routinely occur. We developed the Web-based Lock to Live (L2L) decision aid to help suicidal adults and their families choose options for safer home storage. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of L2L among suicidal adults in emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: At 4 EDs, we enrolled participants (English-speaking, community-dwelling, suicidal adults) in a pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized in a 13:7 ratio to L2L or control (website with general suicide prevention information) groups and received a 1-week follow-up telephone call. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the intervention (n=33) and control (n=16) groups. At baseline, many participants reported having access to firearms (33/49, 67%), medications (46/49, 94%), or both (29/49, 59%). Participants viewed L2L for a median of 6 min (IQR 4-10 min). L2L also had very high acceptability; almost all participants reported that they would recommend it to someone in the same situation, that the options felt realistic, and that L2L was respectful of values about firearms. In an exploratory analysis of this pilot trial, more participants in the L2L group reported reduced firearm access at follow-up, although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The L2L decision aid appears feasible and acceptable for use among adults with suicide risk and may be a useful adjunct to lethal means counseling and other suicide prevention interventions. Future large-scale studies are needed to determine the effect on home access to lethal means. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03478501; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03478501

Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD): study design and methods

Background: As an important indicator of mobility, driving confers a host of social and health benefits to older adults. Despite the importance of safe mobility as the population ages, longitudinal data are lacking about the natural history and determinants of driving safety in older adults. Methods: The Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) project is a multisite prospective cohort study designed to generate empirical data for understanding the role of medical, behavioral, environmental and technological factors in driving safety during the process of aging. Results: A total of 2990 active drivers aged 65–79 years at baseline have been recruited through primary care clinics or health care systems in five study sites located in California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, and New York. Consented participants were assessed at baseline with standardized research protocols and instruments, including vehicle inspection, functional performance tests, and “brown-bag review” of medications. The primary vehicle of each participant was instrumented with a small data collection device that records detailed driving data whenever the vehicle is operating and detects when a participant is driving. Annual follow-up is being conducted for up to three years with a telephone questionnaire at 12 and 36 months and in-person assessment at 24 months. Medical records are reviewed annually to collect information on clinical diagnoses and healthcare utilization. Driving records, including crashes and violations, are collected annually from state motor vehicle departments. Pilot testing was conducted on 56 volunteers during March–May 2015. Recruitment and enrollment were completed between July 2015 and March 2017. Conclusions: Results of the LongROAD project will generate much-needed evidence for formulating public policy and developing intervention programs to maintain safe mobility while ensuring well-being for older adults

Importance of Driving and Potential Impact of Driving Cessation for Rural and Urban Older Adults

PurposeAnalyses compared older drivers from urban, suburban, and rural areas on perceived importance of continuing to drive and potential impact that driving cessation would have on what they want and need to do.MethodsThe AAA LongROAD Study is a prospective study of driving behaviors, patterns, and outcomes of older adults. A cohort of 2,990 women and men 65‐79 years of age was recruited during 2015‐2017 from health systems or primary care practices near 5 study sites in different parts of the United States. Participants were classified as living in urban, surburban, or rural areas and were asked to rate the importance of driving and potential impact of driving cessation. Logistic regression models adjusted for sociodemographic and driving‐related characteristics.FindingsThe percentages of older drivers rating driving as “completely important” were 76.9%, 79.0%, and 83.8% for urban, suburban, and rural drivers, respectively (P = .009). The rural drivers were also most likely to indicate driving cessation would have a high impact on what they want or need to do (P < .001). After adjustment for sociodemographic and driving‐related characteristics, there was a 2‐fold difference for rural versus urban older drivers in odds that driving cessation would have a high impact on what they need to do (OR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.60‐2.58).ConclusionsOlder drivers from rural areas were more likely to rate driving as highly important and the prospect of driving cessation as very impactful. Strategies to enhance both the ability to drive safely and the accessibility of alternative sources of transportation may be especially important for older rural adults.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153160/1/jrh12369_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153160/2/jrh12369.pd

The Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study: design and methods of a multi-center study of decision aid for older drivers

Background: Decision-making about when to stop driving for older adults involves assessment of driving risk, availability of support or resources, and strong emotions about loss of independence. Although the risk of being involved in a fatal crash increases with age, driving cessation can negatively impact an older adult's health and well-being. Decision aids can enhance the decision-making process by increasing knowledge of the risks and benefits of driving cessation and improve decision quality. The impact of decision aids regarding driving cessation for older adults is unknown. Methods: The Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study is a multi-site, two-armed randomized controlled trial that will test the impact of a decision aid on older adults' decisions about changes in driving behaviors and cessation. AUTO will enroll 300 drivers age ≥ 70 years with a study partner (identified by each driver); the dyads will be randomized into two groups (n = 150/group). The decision aid group will view the web-based decision aid created by Healthwise at baseline and the control group will review information about driving that does not include evidence-based elements on risks and benefits and values clarification about driving decisions. The AUTO trial will compare the effect of the decision aid, versus control, on a) immediate decision quality (measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale; primary outcome); b) longitudinal psychosocial outcomes at 12 and 24 months (secondary outcomes); and c) longitudinal driving behaviors (including reduction or cessation) at 12 and 24 months (secondary outcomes). Planned stratified analyses will examine the effects in subgroups defined by cognitive function, decisional capacity, and readiness to stop driving. Discussion: The AUTO study is the first large-scale randomized trial of a driving decision aid for older adults. Results from this study will directly inform clinical practice about how best to support older adults in decision-making about driving

Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication use in older drivers

Background Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) use has been studied in a variety of older adult populations across the world. We sought to examine the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in older drivers. Methods We applied the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria to baseline data collected from the “brown-bag” review of medications for participants of the Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) study to examine the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in a geographically diverse, community-dwelling sample of older drivers (n = 2949). Proportions of participants who used one or more PIMs according to the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria, and estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of PIM use associated with participant characteristics were calculated. Results Overall, 18.5% of the older drivers studied used one or more PIM. The most commonly used therapeutic category of PIM was benzodiazepines (accounting for 16.6% of the total PIMs identified), followed by nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (15.2%), antidepressants (15.2%), and first-generation antihistamines (10.5%). Compared to older drivers on four or fewer medications, the adjusted ORs of PIM use were 2.43 (95% CI 1.68–3.51) for those on 5–7 medications, 4.19 (95% CI 2.95–5.93) for those on 8–11 medications, and 8.01 (95% CI 5.71–11.23) for those on ≥12 medications. Older drivers who were female, white, or living in urban areas were at significantly heightened risk of PIM use. Conclusion About one in five older drivers uses PIMs. Commonly used PIMs are medications known to impair driving ability and increase crash risk. Implementation of evidence-based interventions to reduce PIM use in older drivers may confer both health and safety benefits. Trial registration Not applicable

Thermal Dileptons at LHC

We predict dilepton invariant-mass spectra for central 5.5 ATeV Pb-Pb collisions at LHC. Hadronic emission in the low-mass region is calculated using in-medium spectral functions of light vector mesons within hadronic many-body theory. In the intermediate-mass region thermal radiation from the Quark-Gluon Plasma, evaluated perturbatively with hard-thermal loop corrections, takes over. An important source over the entire mass range are decays of correlated open-charm hadrons, rendering the nuclear modification of charm and bottom spectra a critical ingredient.Comment: 2 pages, 2 figures, contributed to Workshop on Heavy Ion Collisions at the LHC: Last Call for Predictions, Geneva, Switzerland, 14 May - 8 Jun 2007 v2: acknowledgment include

Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication use in older drivers

Abstract Background Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) use has been studied in a variety of older adult populations across the world. We sought to examine the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in older drivers. Methods We applied the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria to baseline data collected from the “brown-bag” review of medications for participants of the Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) study to examine the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in a geographically diverse, community-dwelling sample of older drivers (n = 2949). Proportions of participants who used one or more PIMs according to the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria, and estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of PIM use associated with participant characteristics were calculated. Results Overall, 18.5% of the older drivers studied used one or more PIM. The most commonly used therapeutic category of PIM was benzodiazepines (accounting for 16.6% of the total PIMs identified), followed by nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (15.2%), antidepressants (15.2%), and first-generation antihistamines (10.5%). Compared to older drivers on four or fewer medications, the adjusted ORs of PIM use were 2.43 (95% CI 1.68–3.51) for those on 5–7 medications, 4.19 (95% CI 2.95–5.93) for those on 8–11 medications, and 8.01 (95% CI 5.71–11.23) for those on ≥12 medications. Older drivers who were female, white, or living in urban areas were at significantly heightened risk of PIM use. Conclusion About one in five older drivers uses PIMs. Commonly used PIMs are medications known to impair driving ability and increase crash risk. Implementation of evidence-based interventions to reduce PIM use in older drivers may confer both health and safety benefits. Trial registration Not applicable.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152209/1/12877_2019_Article_1287.pd