Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Background

Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.

Search Methods

Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.

Selection Criteria

Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.

Data Collection and Analysis

Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health-related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2-tool and the GRADE-framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main Results

The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I 2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.32; I 2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health-related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I 2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I 2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions.

Authors’ Conclusions

Twenty-two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short- and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health-related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty.

Back on the Road: Comparing Cognitive Assessments to Driving Simulators in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries

Objective: To compare established clinical outcome assessments for predicting behind the wheel driving readiness and driving simulator results across age groups and in traumatic brain injury. Methods: Participants included adults who had a traumatic brain injury ranging in age from 31 to 57 years and a non-impaired adult population ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. Physical and cognitive outcomes measures were collected included range of motion and coordination, a “Rules of the Road Test” a “Sign Identification Test,” Trails A and B, and the clock drawing test. Visual measures included the Dynavision D2 system and motor-free visual perceptual test-3 (MVPT-3). Finally, the driving simulators (STIÒ version M300) metro drive assessment was used, which consisted of negotiating several obstacles in a metropolitan area including vehicles abruptly changing lanes, pedestrians crossing streets, and negotiating construction zones. Results: Our findings suggest that the standard paper-pencil cognitive assessments and sign identification test significantly differentiate TBI from a non-impaired population (Trails A, B and Clock drawing test p < 0.001). While the driving simulator did not show as many robust differences with age, the TBI population did have a significantly greater number of road collisions (F3, 78 = 3.5, p = 0.02). We also observed a significant correlation between the cognitive assessments and the simulator variables. Conclusions: Paper-pencil cognitive assessments and the sign identification test highlight greater differences than the STI Driving Simulator between non-impaired and TBI populations. However, the driving simulator may be useful in assessing cognitive ability and training for on the road driving.

Consistency of neuropsychological and driving simulator assessment after neurological impairment

Deficits in attentional and executive functioning may interfere with driving ability and result in a lower level of fitness to drive. Studies show mixed results in relation to the consistency of neuropsychological and driving simulator assessment. The objective of this study was to investigate the consistency of both types of assessment. Ninety-nine patients with various neurological impairments (72 males; M = 48.98 years; SD = 17.27) performed a 30-minute drive in a driving simulation in three different road settings; a (non-)residential rural area, a highway and an urban area. They also underwent neuropsychological assessment of attention and executive function. An exploratory correlational analysis was conducted. We found weak, but significant correlations between attention and executive function measures and more efficient driving in the driving simulator. Distractibility was associated with the most simulator variables in all three simulated road settings. Participants who were better at maintaining attention, eliminating irrelevant information and suppressing inappropriate responses, were less likely to drive above the speed limit, produced a less jerky ride, and used the rearview mirror more regularly. A lack of moderate or strong significant correlations (inconsistency) between traditional neuropsychological and simulator assessment variables may indicate that they don't evaluate the same cognitive processes.

Investigating feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a simulator-based driving intervention for people with acquired brain injury: A randomised controlled pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a driving simulator intervention on driving outcomes following acquired brain injury.

DESIGN

Pilot randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Occupational therapy driver assessment and rehabilitation service.

SUBJECTS

Individuals post-acquired brain injury aiming to return to driving.

INTERVENTION

Eight sessions of simulated driver training over four weeks, in addition to usual care. Control: Usual care only.

MAIN MEASURES

Feasibility outcomes: Participant recruitment and retention; data completeness; therapy attendance and fidelity; adverse events. Performance outcomes: on-road driving performance; Simulator Sickness Questionnaire; Brain Injury Driving Self-Awareness Measure and Driving Comfort Scale - Daytime, assessed at baseline and five weeks post-randomisation.

RESULTS

Out of 523 individuals screened, 22 (4%) were recruited and randomised, with 20 completing their allocated group (n = 12 Simulator, n = 8 Usual Care). For those who completed training, session attendance was 100% with simulator sickness rated, on average, as mild. Six individuals (50%) in the Simulator group failed the on-road assessment, versus two (25%) in the Usual Care group (P = 0.373). On average, the Simulator group reported a positive change in confidence ratings (M = 5.77, SD = 13.96) compared to the Usual Care group, who reported a negative change (M = -6.97, SD = 8.47), P = 0.034. The Simulator group (M = 0.67, SD = 3.34) demonstrated no significant change in self-awareness relative to the Usual Care group (M = -0.83, SD = 1.83, P = 0.325).

CONCLUSIONS

With adjustments to inclusion criteria and recruitment strategies, it may be feasible to deliver the intervention and conduct a larger trial. There is potential benefit of simulator training for improving driver confidence after acquired brain injury.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of older driver interventions

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize and quantify the effects of different driving interventions among older adults on outcomes of crashes, on-road driving performance, self-reported outcomes of errors and crashes, and driving simulator performance. Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of a driving intervention among older adults ≥ 50 years of age were included. Thirty-one studies were identified using a systematic literature review, and 26 were included in meta-analyses. The following types of driving interventions were identified: physical retraining/exercise (e.g., flexibility and coordination training); visual-perceptual training (e.g., improving figure-ground discrimination); cognitive training (e.g., Useful Field of View cognitive training); education (e.g., classroom driver refresher course); context-specific training (i.e., on-road training in car, driving simulator training); combined intervention approaches (e.g., education and context-specific training combined). Effect sizes were calculated for each driving intervention type relative to control groups using random-effects. Physical retraining/exercise, visual-perceptual training, and combined intervention approaches demonstrated medium to large effects on on-road driving performance, ds = 0.564-1.061, ps < .050. Cognitive training approaches reduced at-fault crashes by almost 30 %, OR = 0.729, 95 % CI [0.553, 0.962], p = .026. Education and context-specific approaches were not efficacious to improve driving safety outcomes, ps> .050. In summary, skill-specific interventions (physical retraining/exercise, visual-perceptual training, cognitive training) and combined intervention approaches improved on-road driving performance and reduced at-fault crashes. Optimizing interventions that target age-related functional declines and combined intervention approaches is recommended.

Reliability and validity of on-road driving tests in vulnerable adults: a systematic review

The on-road driving test is considered a ‘gold standard’ evaluation; however, its validity and reliability have not been sufficiently reviewed. This systematic review aimed to map out and synthesize literature regarding on-road driving tests using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched from initiation through February 2018. All articles addressing reliability or validity of on-road driving tests involving adult rehabilitation patients were included. The search output identified 513 studies and 36 articles, which were included in the review. The Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test, performance analysis of driving ability, test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive, and K-score demonstrated high reliability and validity in regard to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. The Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test and test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive were analyzed based on Classical Test Theory techniques, and performance analysis of driving ability and K-score were analyzed based on Item Response Theory techniques. The frequency of studies were Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test (n=9), Test Ride for Investigating Practical fitness-to-drive (n=8), performance analysis of driving ability (n=4), and K-score (n=1). From the viewpoint of accuracy and generalization, the Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test, test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive, and performance analysis of driving ability were identified as highly qualified concerning on-road driving tests. However, the ability to assess real-world driving depends on various environmental conditions.

User experiences and perspectives of a driving simulator intervention for individuals with acquired brain injury: A qualitative study

Driving a motor vehicle is a common rehabilitation goal following acquired brain injury (ABI). There is increasing interest in the use of driving simulators for driver rehabilitation post-ABI; however, there is still limited research demonstrating efficacy and acceptability. This study sought to examine the user experience of a driving simulator intervention for ABI survivors. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 individuals, including 12 ABI survivors (42% male; Mean age = 53.92 years, SD age = 17.63) who completed the intervention, and 2 occupational therapist driver assessors who facilitated the intervention. Thematic analysis was adopted to analyse interview data. Findings suggest that individual differences (e.g., anxiety, previous experience) influenced participant response to training. The intervention allowed participants to practise various driving skills, re-familiarize themselves with the task of driving, and prepare for return to on-road driving within a safe environment. The intervention was perceived to be useful for enhancing driver self-awareness, autonomy, confidence and patience. Fidelity and simulator sickness were considered limitations of the simulator technology. Subjective accounts of the appropriateness of intervention components are also documented. Overall, the simulator intervention was reported to be a positive experience for participants. Themes emerging from this study can inform future driving simulator interventions for ABI survivors.

Is simulator-based driver rehabilitation missing motion feedback?

Currently, driver rehabilitation involves use of fixed-base simulators. Such simulators are used infrequently and with little success. We hypothesize that the absence of motion feedback may be limiting the therapeutic effectiveness of driving simulation. During real, motor vehicle driving, the driver receives motion feedback that provides rich and real-time information about acceleration, deceleration and turning of the vehicle. Thus, motion feedback may be a key missing component that could dramatically increase the clinical pragmatism of simulator-based driver rehabilitation. In this pilot study, six young adult drivers participated in simulated driving tasks with or without motion feedback. Participants who received motion feedback completed faster laps on a racetrack and committed fewer driving infractions on a highway. They reported being more motivated and aware of the pressure of high speed driving. Particularly, they experienced substantially fewer symptoms of simulator sickness, a primary impedient to widespread use of driving simulators for driver rehabilitation. These preliminary finding motivate a full investigation of the impacts of motion feedback during simulated driving, and of the efficacy of lower cost, two degree of freedom driving simulators for clinical use.

Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Virtual reality and interactive video gaming have emerged as recent treatment approaches in stroke rehabilitation with commercial gaming consoles in particular, being rapidly adopted in clinical settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published first in 2011 and then again in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: to determine the efficacy of virtual reality compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on upper limb function and activity.Secondary objectives: to determine the efficacy of virtual reality compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on: gait and balance, global motor function, cognitive function, activity limitation, participation restriction, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2017), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven additional databases. We also searched trials registries and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of virtual reality ("an advanced form of human-computer interface that allows the user to 'interact' with and become 'immersed' in a computer-generated environment in a naturalistic fashion") in adults after stroke. The primary outcome of interest was upper limb function and activity. Secondary outcomes included gait and balance and global motor function.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials based on pre-defined inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third review author moderated disagreements when required. The review authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 72 trials that involved 2470 participants. This review includes 35 new studies in addition to the studies included in the previous version of this review. Study sample sizes were generally small and interventions varied in terms of both the goals of treatment and the virtual reality devices used. The risk of bias present in many studies was unclear due to poor reporting. Thus, while there are a large number of randomised controlled trials, the evidence remains mostly low quality when rated using the GRADE system. Control groups usually received no intervention or therapy based on a standard-care approach.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

results were not statistically significant for upper limb function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.05 to 0.20, 22 studies, 1038 participants, low-quality evidence) when comparing virtual reality to conventional therapy. However, when virtual reality was used in addition to usual care (providing a higher dose of therapy for those in the intervention group) there was a statistically significant difference between groups (SMD 0.49, 0.21 to 0.77, 10 studies, 210 participants, low-quality evidence).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

when compared to conventional therapy approaches there were no statistically significant effects for gait speed or balance. Results were statistically significant for the activities of daily living (ADL) outcome (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.43, 10 studies, 466 participants, moderate-quality evidence); however, we were unable to pool results for cognitive function, participation restriction, or quality of life. Twenty-three studies reported that they monitored for adverse events; across these studies there were few adverse events and those reported were relatively mild.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence that the use of virtual reality and interactive video gaming was not more beneficial than conventional therapy approaches in improving upper limb function. Virtual reality may be beneficial in improving upper limb function and activities of daily living function when used as an adjunct to usual care (to increase overall therapy time). There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the effect of virtual reality and interactive video gaming on gait speed, balance, participation, or quality of life. This review found that time since onset of stroke, severity of impairment, and the type of device (commercial or customised) were not strong influencers of outcome. There was a trend suggesting that higher dose (more than 15 hours of total intervention) was preferable as were customised virtual reality programs; however, these findings were not statistically significant.