Intérêt du simulateur de conduite pour la reprise de la conduite automobile en situation de handicap

A. Carroz , P.-A. Comte , D. Nicolo , O. Dériaz , P. Vuadens
{"title":"Intérêt du simulateur de conduite pour la reprise de la conduite automobile en situation de handicap","authors":"A. Carroz ,&nbsp;P.-A. Comte ,&nbsp;D. Nicolo ,&nbsp;O. Dériaz ,&nbsp;P. Vuadens","doi":"10.1016/j.annrmp.2008.04.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>To evaluate the value of our driving simulator in deciding whether or not to allow patients with physical and/or cognitive deficits to resuming driving and to analyze whether or not the medical expert's final decision is based more on the results of the driving simulator than those of the neuropsychological examination.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One hundred and twenty-three patients were evaluated with the driving simulator. Thirty-five of those with cognitive deficits also underwent a neuropsychological examination prior to the medical expert's decision on driving aptitude. In cases of uncertainty or disagreement, a driving assessment in real conditions was performed by a driving instructor.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In cases of physical handicap, the medical expert's decision concurred with that of the occupational therapist. For brain-injured patients, there was a significant correlation between the neuropsychologist's opinion and that of the occupational therapist (<em>κ</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.33; <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.01). However, the sensibility and specificity were only 55 and 80%, respectively. The correlation between an occupational therapy decision based on the driving simulator and that of the medical expert was very significant (<em>κ</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.81; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.0001) and the sensibility and specificity were 84 and 100%, respectively. In contrast, these values were lower (63 and 71%, respectively) for the correlation between the neuropsychologist's opinion and that of the medical expert.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our driving simulator enables the danger-free evaluation of driving aptitude. The results mirror an in situ assessment and are more sensitive than neuropsychological examination. In fact, the neuropsychologist's opinion often is more negative or uncertain with respect to the patient's real driving aptitude. When taking a decision on a patient's driving aptitude, the medical expert is more inclined to trust the results of the driving simulator.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72206,"journal":{"name":"Annales de readaptation et de medecine physique : revue scientifique de la Societe francaise de reeducation fonctionnelle de readaptation et de medecine physique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.annrmp.2008.04.007","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annales de readaptation et de medecine physique : revue scientifique de la Societe francaise de reeducation fonctionnelle de readaptation et de medecine physique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168605408000792","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Aims

To evaluate the value of our driving simulator in deciding whether or not to allow patients with physical and/or cognitive deficits to resuming driving and to analyze whether or not the medical expert's final decision is based more on the results of the driving simulator than those of the neuropsychological examination.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-three patients were evaluated with the driving simulator. Thirty-five of those with cognitive deficits also underwent a neuropsychological examination prior to the medical expert's decision on driving aptitude. In cases of uncertainty or disagreement, a driving assessment in real conditions was performed by a driving instructor.

Results

In cases of physical handicap, the medical expert's decision concurred with that of the occupational therapist. For brain-injured patients, there was a significant correlation between the neuropsychologist's opinion and that of the occupational therapist (κ = 0.33; P = 0.01). However, the sensibility and specificity were only 55 and 80%, respectively. The correlation between an occupational therapy decision based on the driving simulator and that of the medical expert was very significant (κ = 0.81; P < 0.0001) and the sensibility and specificity were 84 and 100%, respectively. In contrast, these values were lower (63 and 71%, respectively) for the correlation between the neuropsychologist's opinion and that of the medical expert.

Conclusion

Our driving simulator enables the danger-free evaluation of driving aptitude. The results mirror an in situ assessment and are more sensitive than neuropsychological examination. In fact, the neuropsychologist's opinion often is more negative or uncertain with respect to the patient's real driving aptitude. When taking a decision on a patient's driving aptitude, the medical expert is more inclined to trust the results of the driving simulator.

驾驶模拟器对在残疾情况下恢复驾驶的兴趣
目的评价驾驶模拟器在决定是否允许身体和/或认知缺陷患者恢复驾驶方面的价值,并分析医学专家的最终决定是否更多地基于驾驶模拟器的结果而不是神经心理检查的结果。方法采用驾驶模拟器对123例患者进行评估。在医学专家对驾驶能力做出决定之前,35名有认知缺陷的人还接受了神经心理学检查。在不确定或意见不一致的情况下,由驾驶教练在真实条件下进行驾驶评估。结果在肢体残疾病例中,医学专家的判断与职业治疗师的一致。对于脑损伤患者,神经心理学家的观点与职业治疗师的观点存在显著相关(κ = 0.33;p = 0.01)。而敏感性和特异性分别只有55%和80%。基于驾驶模拟器的职业治疗决策与医学专家的职业治疗决策之间的相关性非常显著(κ = 0.81;P & lt;0.0001),敏感性和特异性分别为84%和100%。相比之下,神经心理学家的观点与医学专家的观点之间的相关性较低(分别为63%和71%)。结论该驾驶模拟器可以实现驾驶能力的无危险评估。结果反映了原位评估,比神经心理学检查更敏感。事实上,神经心理学家的意见往往是消极的或不确定的关于病人的真实驾驶能力。当对病人的驾驶能力作出决定时,医学专家更倾向于相信驾驶模拟器的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信