酒精使用障碍与驾驶能力:医疗专业人员的评估与酒精使用和认知功能的客观测量之间的差异

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs Pub Date : 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1177/14550725231219972
Kristoffer Høiland, E. Arnevik, Jens Egeland
{"title":"酒精使用障碍与驾驶能力:医疗专业人员的评估与酒精使用和认知功能的客观测量之间的差异","authors":"Kristoffer Høiland, E. Arnevik, Jens Egeland","doi":"10.1177/14550725231219972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: In this study, we investigated if health professionals’ evaluations of driving ability corresponded with measures of severity of alcohol use and measures of cognitive functions necessary for safely driving a car. Methods: A total of 90 participants from a multicentre study were included. Participants were categorised into three groups: (1) the group judged fit to drive (FIT); (2) the group judged not fit to drive (UNFIT); and (3) the group who had lost their driver's licence due to legal sanctions (LEGAL). The participants’ AUDIT scores, earlier treatment episodes and results from neuropsychological tests of reaction time, attention and visuospatial ability were included in the analyses. Results: We found a significant difference in the severity of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and visuospatial abilities between the FIT and UNFIT groups. Half of the UNFIT group had at least mild visuospatial difficulties, compared to only a quarter in the FIT group. There were no group differences in reaction time or attentional measures. The LEGAL group had more severe AUD than the other groups. Conclusion: The FIT group did not perform differently from the UNFIT group on attention and reaction time measures. The UNFIT group had more visuospatial impairments, but even half of this group had normal scores. It is uncertain whether the differences between the two groups are of practical significance. The quality of health professionals’ evaluations may be questioned, and the results highlight the need for more reliable and valid criteria for doing fitness to drive evaluations.","PeriodicalId":46180,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs","volume":"22 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alcohol use disorder and fitness to drive: Discrepancies between health professionals’ evaluations and objective measures of alcohol use and cognitive functioning\",\"authors\":\"Kristoffer Høiland, E. Arnevik, Jens Egeland\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14550725231219972\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aims: In this study, we investigated if health professionals’ evaluations of driving ability corresponded with measures of severity of alcohol use and measures of cognitive functions necessary for safely driving a car. Methods: A total of 90 participants from a multicentre study were included. Participants were categorised into three groups: (1) the group judged fit to drive (FIT); (2) the group judged not fit to drive (UNFIT); and (3) the group who had lost their driver's licence due to legal sanctions (LEGAL). The participants’ AUDIT scores, earlier treatment episodes and results from neuropsychological tests of reaction time, attention and visuospatial ability were included in the analyses. Results: We found a significant difference in the severity of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and visuospatial abilities between the FIT and UNFIT groups. Half of the UNFIT group had at least mild visuospatial difficulties, compared to only a quarter in the FIT group. There were no group differences in reaction time or attentional measures. The LEGAL group had more severe AUD than the other groups. Conclusion: The FIT group did not perform differently from the UNFIT group on attention and reaction time measures. The UNFIT group had more visuospatial impairments, but even half of this group had normal scores. It is uncertain whether the differences between the two groups are of practical significance. The quality of health professionals’ evaluations may be questioned, and the results highlight the need for more reliable and valid criteria for doing fitness to drive evaluations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs\",\"volume\":\"22 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725231219972\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725231219972","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在本研究中,我们调查了医疗专业人员对驾驶能力的评价是否与酒精使用严重程度的测量值以及安全驾驶汽车所需的认知功能的测量值相对应。研究方法一项多中心研究共纳入了 90 名参与者。参与者被分为三组:(1) 被判定为适合驾驶的一组(FIT);(2) 被判定为不适合驾驶的一组(UNFIT);(3) 因法律制裁而失去驾照的一组(LEGAL)。参与者的 AUDIT 分数、早期治疗情况以及反应时间、注意力和视觉空间能力的神经心理学测试结果均纳入分析。结果我们发现 FIT 组和 UNFIT 组在酒精使用障碍(AUD)的严重程度和视觉空间能力方面存在明显差异。UNFIT 组中有一半人至少有轻微的视觉空间障碍,而 FIT 组中只有四分之一的人有这种障碍。在反应时间或注意力方面,两组之间没有差异。LEGAL 组比其他组有更严重的 AUD。结论:在注意力和反应时间测量方面,FIT 组与 UNFIT 组没有差异。UNFIT 组有更多的视觉空间障碍,但该组甚至有一半人的得分是正常的。目前还不能确定两组之间的差异是否具有实际意义。医疗专业人员的评估质量可能会受到质疑,评估结果突出表明,在进行驾驶能力评估时,需要更可靠、更有效的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Alcohol use disorder and fitness to drive: Discrepancies between health professionals’ evaluations and objective measures of alcohol use and cognitive functioning
Aims: In this study, we investigated if health professionals’ evaluations of driving ability corresponded with measures of severity of alcohol use and measures of cognitive functions necessary for safely driving a car. Methods: A total of 90 participants from a multicentre study were included. Participants were categorised into three groups: (1) the group judged fit to drive (FIT); (2) the group judged not fit to drive (UNFIT); and (3) the group who had lost their driver's licence due to legal sanctions (LEGAL). The participants’ AUDIT scores, earlier treatment episodes and results from neuropsychological tests of reaction time, attention and visuospatial ability were included in the analyses. Results: We found a significant difference in the severity of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and visuospatial abilities between the FIT and UNFIT groups. Half of the UNFIT group had at least mild visuospatial difficulties, compared to only a quarter in the FIT group. There were no group differences in reaction time or attentional measures. The LEGAL group had more severe AUD than the other groups. Conclusion: The FIT group did not perform differently from the UNFIT group on attention and reaction time measures. The UNFIT group had more visuospatial impairments, but even half of this group had normal scores. It is uncertain whether the differences between the two groups are of practical significance. The quality of health professionals’ evaluations may be questioned, and the results highlight the need for more reliable and valid criteria for doing fitness to drive evaluations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
36
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Professional competencies in social work concerned with alcohol use problems in Lithuania: Moving beyond 'know-how". New divides and alienation. Rehabilitative measures as a legal response for adolescents convicted for drug offences: The Swedish system. Understanding substance use patterns among adolescent girls in Norway through the lens of mattering. Connection, hope, and reciprocal valuation: Experiences of participating in the peer-led course "Recovery is up to you".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1