Predicting fitness-to-drive following stroke using the Occupational Therapy – Driver Off Road Assessment Battery

Introduction: It is difficult to determine if, or when, individuals with stroke are ready to undergo on-road fitness-to-drive assessment. The Occupational Therapy - Driver Off Road Assessment Battery was developed to determine client suitability to resume driving. The predictive validity of the Battery needs to be verified for people with stroke. Aim: Examine the predictive validity of the Occupational Therapy - Driver Off Road Assessment Battery for on-road performance among people with stroke. Method: Off-road data were collected from 148 people post stroke on the Battery and the outcome of their on-road assessment was recorded as: fit-to-drive or not fit-to-drive. Results: The majority of participants (76%) were able to resume driving. A classification and regression tree (CART) analysis using four subtests (three cognitive and one physical) from the Battery demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8311. Using a threshold of 0.5, the model correctly predicted 98/112 fit-to-drive (87.5%) and 26/36 people not fit-to-drive (72.2%). Conclusion: The three cognitive subtests from the Occupational Therapy - Driver Off Road Assessment Battery and potentially one of the physical tests have good predictive validity for client fitness-to-drive. These tests can be used to screen client suitability for proceeding to an on-road test following stroke. Implications for Rehabilitation: Following stroke, drivers should be counseled (including consideration of local legislation) concerning return to driving. The Occupational Therapy - Driver Off Road Assessment Battery can be used in the clinic to screen people for suitability to undertake on road assessment. Scores on four of the Occupational Therapy - Driver Off Road Assessment Battery subtests are predictive of resumption of driving following stroke

A systematic review of evidence for fitness-to-drive among people with the mental health conditions of schizophrenia, stress/anxiety disorder, depression, personality disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding fitness-to-drive for people with the mental health conditions of schizophrenia, stress/anxiety disorder, depression, personality disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder (herein simply referred to as 'mental health conditions'). The aim of this paper was to systematically search and classify all published studies regarding driving for this population, and then critically appraise papers addressing assessment of fitness-to-drive where the focus was not on the impact of medication on driving. METHODS: A systematic search of three databases (CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, EMBASE) was completed from inception to May 2016 to identify all articles on driving and mental health conditions. Papers meeting the eligibility criteria of including data relating to assessment of fitness-to-drive were critically appraised using the American Academy of Neurology and Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine protocols. RESULTS: A total of 58 articles met the inclusion criteria of driving among people with mental health conditions studied, and of these, 16 contained data and an explicit focus on assessment of fitness-to-drive. Assessment of fitness-to-drive was reported in three ways: 1) factors impacting on the ability to drive safely among people with mental health conditions, 2) capability and perception of health professionals assessing fitness-to-drive of people with mental health conditions, and 3) crash rates. The level of evidence of the published studies was low due to the absence of controls, and the inability to pool data from different diagnostic groups. Evidence supporting fitness-to-drive is conflicting. CONCLUSIONS: There is a relatively small literature in the area of driving with mental health conditions, and the overall quality of studies examining fitness-to-drive is low. Large-scale longitudinal studies with age-matched controls are urgently needed in order to determine the effects of different conditions on fitness-to-drive

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Living with epilepsy: Safety during home, leisure and work activities

Unsworth, CA ORCiD: 0000-0001-6430-2823Although there is a large literature concerning epilepsy and issues such as quality of life, driving, and knowledge and perceptions about epilepsy, there are very few articles that examine client knowledge and implementation of practical ways to minimize the risk of seizure-related injuries during daily living activities (ADL). Using a health promotion framework, the purpose of this study was to examine clients’ understanding of their epilepsy, the kinds of accidents they experienced and their knowledge and practices concerning safety during ADL. A questionnaire was completed by 82 people with epilepsy from across the state of Victoria. It was found that respondents’ knowledge of seizure-related injury minimization strategies was quite limited, and many respondents reported accidents during ADL, including driving. The majority of respondents requested more information to improve their safety during ADL if they experienced a seizure. The findings indicate that therapists may need to spend more time with their clients who have epilepsy in exploring strategies that promote health and minimize seizurerelated accidents during ADL. Occupational therapists may choose to use the ADL safety brochure developed in response to this research to assist with client education

Writing systematic, scoping, and app reviews: Summarising and appraising best evidence

Unsworth, CA ORCiD: 0000-0001-6430-2823Since the last BJOT editorial on reviews (Unsworth, 2017), we have been delighted with the number and increased quality of submissions we have received in the review category. To continue to support authors to submit the highest quality review articles, this editorial presents further guidance on the kinds of reviews BJOT prioritises for consideration for publication. It also provides information on the critical appraisal and quality review tools that authors can use to review both literature and health applications (software ‘apps’). When submitting a review, please also see the journal’s web page and submission guidance for information on our current policy regarding review submission, as this information changes as we update and revise our priorities for the journal. For example, at present we particularly encourage systematic reviews, and we plan to include at least one systematic review in any special issue

Using social judgment theory to study occupational therapists' use of information when making driver licensing recommendations for older and functionally impaired adults

Unsworth, CA ORCiD: 0000-0001-6430-2823OBJECTIVE. This study sought to identify the informational cues that driver-assessor-trained occupational therapists (DATOTs) consider when making driver licensing recommendations for older and functionally impaired clients. Relatively little research supports these complex decisions. METHOD. A survey using a social judgment theory framework was mailed to all practicing registered DATOTs in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS. Cue mean rank order, as calculated across the 56 responses (return rate, 78%), revealed that the four most important cues were driving instructor interventions, driver behavior, cognitive and perceptual skills, and vehicle handling skills. Substantial individual variations in cue ranks were not attributable to respondents’ years of experience. CONCLUSION. Because driver licensing recommendations may have a major impact on clients’ lives, debate and further study concerning information use are needed to assist DATOTs in making consistent and optimal licensing recommendations to ensure the safety of all road users and avoid when possible the negative consequences of license loss

Team decision-making in rehabilitation: A commentary

Unsworth, CA ORCiD: 0000-0001-6430-2823A commentar