Alcohol use disorder and fitness to drive: Discrepancies between health professionals’ evaluations and objective measures of alcohol use and cognitive functioning

• Published in: Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT 2024-08, Vol.41 (4), p.426-438
• Main Authors: Høiland, Kristoffer, Arnevik, Espen Kristian Ajo, Egeland, Jens
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Ability; Alcohol use; Alcoholic beverages; Alcoholism; Alcohols; Attention; Cognitive ability; Cognitive functioning; Discrepancies; Driving ability; Health status; Medical personnel; Multicenter studies; Neuropsychological assessment; Reaction time; Research Reports; Sanctions; Severity; Time measurement; Visual perception; Visual-Spatial ability
• ISSN: 1455-0725; 1458-6126; 1458-6126
• DOI: 10.1177/14550725231219972

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.