Driving Patterns in Older Adults With Glaucoma
Driving Patterns in Older Adults With Glaucoma
Individuals with glaucoma were significantly more likely than glaucoma suspects to have limited or stopped their driving in this clinic-based study. Driving cessation and driving limitations were also more common with more severe VF loss (Figures 1 and 2).
The presence of the association between glaucoma and driving cessation found in the current work corroborates previous studies. The Blue Mountain Eye Study reported a greater than 2-fold increased odds of driving cessation for subjects with glaucoma or impaired visual acuity after adjusting for age and gender, though subjects were not classified by disease severity. The Salisbury Eye Evaluation found an association between bilateral glaucoma and driving cessation in the elderly and a 2-fold greater risk of driving cessation with every 5 dB decrement in the better-eye VF. The consistency of findings across studies supports the idea that driving cessation becomes more common with greater VF loss in numerous driving environments.
Previous studies have differed in their assessment of whether people with glaucoma are more likely to limit their driving. The Salisbury Eye Evaluation found no significant associations between glaucoma and driving limitations, but our study and two others did. The discrepancies between different studies may be explained by demographic differences in the study populations. For example, our study population was younger (mean age 70) and our study location was urban while the Salisbury Eye Evaluation assessed an older (mean age 80), rural group. The current study is the first to demonstrate greater driving limitations with increasing disease severity.
Driving cessation is clearly an effective method for avoiding some of the risks associated with VF loss. However, the extent to which limitation of driving is a successful method for balancing safety and independence remains unknown. One possibility is that those who limit their driving due to VF loss succeed in reducing their risk of MVAs to a level similar to or even lower than other drivers. This hypothesis could partially explain why some previous studies found that having a glaucoma diagnosis may not increase older individuals' risk of MVAs. However, a second possibility is that, despite limiting their driving, individuals with glaucomatous VF loss still drive poorly and/or unsafely. This is supported by studies showing that VF loss is a risk factor for MVAs. Further study is needed to clarify the adequacy of these self-imposed driving limitations in keeping drivers safe.
Another adaptation that drivers with glaucoma may make is deferring to another driver. However, neither glaucoma nor the severity of VF loss predicted driver preference in the current study, which implies that glaucoma is not a factor influencing driver preference independent of other more significant factors such as gender and age. As such, the selection of a driver within a family may often be determined by traditional gender roles rather than by driving skill.
Our study also identified several other non-visual characteristics associated with driving habits. Depression was associated with driving cessation and may be both a risk factor for and a consequence of driving cessation. Females were more likely to limit their driving. Females, individuals living with another driver, older individuals, and individuals with impaired cognition were also more likely to prefer another driver. These findings highlight the need to account for non-visual factors when making recommendations regarding driving.
The present study also sought to determine which measure of vision best predicts driving limitations in individuals with glaucoma. Contrast sensitivity appeared to best predict driving cessation, so when information on contrast sensitivity is available, it may be useful in guiding conversations about driving. Contrast sensitivity is highly correlated with better-eye VF MD in glaucoma patients, however so the two measurements are essentially interchangeable for this purpose.
The use of self-report to assess driving habits in this study is a potential source of bias, as subjects may feel motivated to conceal unsafe driving behaviors. It can provide valuable information about subjects' perceived limitations, however, which may have a strong impact on quality of life. Other studies have used simulators and direct on-road evaluation to assess the impact of glaucoma on driving. These methodologies have the advantage of allowing direct observation of driving performance, thereby limiting self-report bias, but offer a limited period of observation. Also, the driver is not in their own car or typical driving environment, which may impact their driving performance. The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Driving Study used driver monitoring systems installed in subjects' cars to study the impact of vision on driving in a population-based cohort of older adults. While that study was not powered to detect the impact of glaucoma on driving, it represents a promising strategy for studying the impact of vision loss on driving in the person's native environment.
A limitation of our study was that driving changes were not assessed prospectively, so we cannot draw conclusions about the stage of disease at which driving limitations and driving cessation first occurred. Also, our control population was comprised of glaucoma suspects rather than true 'normals' not under ophthalmologic care. We felt that this was the best control group for our study as it would balance any potential bias caused by recruitment from a referral center. Additionally, normals recruited from spouses or volunteers are likely to exclude those with mobility limitations, thus overestimating findings. This suspect group reported minimal driving limitations (6.9% driving cessation and an average of 1.1 driving limitations vs. 22.5% cessation and 1.9 limitations for the glaucoma group), suggesting that these glaucoma suspects were not altering their driving habits due to knowledge of their disease risk. Finally, we utilized better-eye VF loss as a metric of glaucoma severity instead of measures aimed at integrating right and left eye VF results to simulate binocular VF loss. Previous work has shown that better-eye MD is typically slightly worse than integrated VF MD, and differs from integrated VF MD by 2 dB or more in roughly one in 4 patients. Thus, it is possible that results would have been different if integrated VF MD was used as a metric of VF loss. However, binocular VF loss is not easily calculated in clinic and did not predict subjective or objective measures of disability better than better-eye VF loss in one study. Better-eye MD has been shown to predict legal fitness to drive in the United Kingdom just as well as models which incorporated VF MDs from both eyes, though further work will be necessary to determine if better-eye and integrated VF metrics predict actual disability to a similar extent.
The choice to cease or limit driving is likely guided by both fitness to drive and other factors. Regulating fitness to drive is best achieved by combining information regarding real-world patient choices and observation of driving in simulated or real-world situations, and relating them to measures of VF loss. The fact that patients with glaucoma are more likely to limit their driving is encouraging and may indicate that glaucoma patients as a whole are self-regulating in such a way as to keep themselves (and others) safe on the road. Further prospective study is merited to assess when and why people with glaucoma change their driving habits, and perhaps to assess MVAs per mile driven in this group. Because of the potential for driving cessation and limitation to negatively affect individuals' quality of life, it will be important to balance safety and independence for drivers with visual impairment due to glaucoma.
Discussion and conclusions
Individuals with glaucoma were significantly more likely than glaucoma suspects to have limited or stopped their driving in this clinic-based study. Driving cessation and driving limitations were also more common with more severe VF loss (Figures 1 and 2).
The presence of the association between glaucoma and driving cessation found in the current work corroborates previous studies. The Blue Mountain Eye Study reported a greater than 2-fold increased odds of driving cessation for subjects with glaucoma or impaired visual acuity after adjusting for age and gender, though subjects were not classified by disease severity. The Salisbury Eye Evaluation found an association between bilateral glaucoma and driving cessation in the elderly and a 2-fold greater risk of driving cessation with every 5 dB decrement in the better-eye VF. The consistency of findings across studies supports the idea that driving cessation becomes more common with greater VF loss in numerous driving environments.
Previous studies have differed in their assessment of whether people with glaucoma are more likely to limit their driving. The Salisbury Eye Evaluation found no significant associations between glaucoma and driving limitations, but our study and two others did. The discrepancies between different studies may be explained by demographic differences in the study populations. For example, our study population was younger (mean age 70) and our study location was urban while the Salisbury Eye Evaluation assessed an older (mean age 80), rural group. The current study is the first to demonstrate greater driving limitations with increasing disease severity.
Driving cessation is clearly an effective method for avoiding some of the risks associated with VF loss. However, the extent to which limitation of driving is a successful method for balancing safety and independence remains unknown. One possibility is that those who limit their driving due to VF loss succeed in reducing their risk of MVAs to a level similar to or even lower than other drivers. This hypothesis could partially explain why some previous studies found that having a glaucoma diagnosis may not increase older individuals' risk of MVAs. However, a second possibility is that, despite limiting their driving, individuals with glaucomatous VF loss still drive poorly and/or unsafely. This is supported by studies showing that VF loss is a risk factor for MVAs. Further study is needed to clarify the adequacy of these self-imposed driving limitations in keeping drivers safe.
Another adaptation that drivers with glaucoma may make is deferring to another driver. However, neither glaucoma nor the severity of VF loss predicted driver preference in the current study, which implies that glaucoma is not a factor influencing driver preference independent of other more significant factors such as gender and age. As such, the selection of a driver within a family may often be determined by traditional gender roles rather than by driving skill.
Our study also identified several other non-visual characteristics associated with driving habits. Depression was associated with driving cessation and may be both a risk factor for and a consequence of driving cessation. Females were more likely to limit their driving. Females, individuals living with another driver, older individuals, and individuals with impaired cognition were also more likely to prefer another driver. These findings highlight the need to account for non-visual factors when making recommendations regarding driving.
The present study also sought to determine which measure of vision best predicts driving limitations in individuals with glaucoma. Contrast sensitivity appeared to best predict driving cessation, so when information on contrast sensitivity is available, it may be useful in guiding conversations about driving. Contrast sensitivity is highly correlated with better-eye VF MD in glaucoma patients, however so the two measurements are essentially interchangeable for this purpose.
The use of self-report to assess driving habits in this study is a potential source of bias, as subjects may feel motivated to conceal unsafe driving behaviors. It can provide valuable information about subjects' perceived limitations, however, which may have a strong impact on quality of life. Other studies have used simulators and direct on-road evaluation to assess the impact of glaucoma on driving. These methodologies have the advantage of allowing direct observation of driving performance, thereby limiting self-report bias, but offer a limited period of observation. Also, the driver is not in their own car or typical driving environment, which may impact their driving performance. The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Driving Study used driver monitoring systems installed in subjects' cars to study the impact of vision on driving in a population-based cohort of older adults. While that study was not powered to detect the impact of glaucoma on driving, it represents a promising strategy for studying the impact of vision loss on driving in the person's native environment.
A limitation of our study was that driving changes were not assessed prospectively, so we cannot draw conclusions about the stage of disease at which driving limitations and driving cessation first occurred. Also, our control population was comprised of glaucoma suspects rather than true 'normals' not under ophthalmologic care. We felt that this was the best control group for our study as it would balance any potential bias caused by recruitment from a referral center. Additionally, normals recruited from spouses or volunteers are likely to exclude those with mobility limitations, thus overestimating findings. This suspect group reported minimal driving limitations (6.9% driving cessation and an average of 1.1 driving limitations vs. 22.5% cessation and 1.9 limitations for the glaucoma group), suggesting that these glaucoma suspects were not altering their driving habits due to knowledge of their disease risk. Finally, we utilized better-eye VF loss as a metric of glaucoma severity instead of measures aimed at integrating right and left eye VF results to simulate binocular VF loss. Previous work has shown that better-eye MD is typically slightly worse than integrated VF MD, and differs from integrated VF MD by 2 dB or more in roughly one in 4 patients. Thus, it is possible that results would have been different if integrated VF MD was used as a metric of VF loss. However, binocular VF loss is not easily calculated in clinic and did not predict subjective or objective measures of disability better than better-eye VF loss in one study. Better-eye MD has been shown to predict legal fitness to drive in the United Kingdom just as well as models which incorporated VF MDs from both eyes, though further work will be necessary to determine if better-eye and integrated VF metrics predict actual disability to a similar extent.
The choice to cease or limit driving is likely guided by both fitness to drive and other factors. Regulating fitness to drive is best achieved by combining information regarding real-world patient choices and observation of driving in simulated or real-world situations, and relating them to measures of VF loss. The fact that patients with glaucoma are more likely to limit their driving is encouraging and may indicate that glaucoma patients as a whole are self-regulating in such a way as to keep themselves (and others) safe on the road. Further prospective study is merited to assess when and why people with glaucoma change their driving habits, and perhaps to assess MVAs per mile driven in this group. Because of the potential for driving cessation and limitation to negatively affect individuals' quality of life, it will be important to balance safety and independence for drivers with visual impairment due to glaucoma.
