Simulated Driving Skills Evaluation of Teenagers With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Before Driving Lessons

Reducing Driving Risk Factors in Adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Insights from EEG and Eye-Tracking Analysis

Adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) face significant driving challenges due to deficits in attention and executive functioning, elevating their road risks. Previous interventions targeting driving safety among this cohort have typically addressed isolated aspects (e.g., cognitive or behavioral factors) or relied on uniform solutions. However, these approaches often overlook this population's diverse needs. This study introduces the "Drive-Fun" innovative intervention (DFI), aimed at enhancing driving skills among this vulnerable population. The intervention was tested in a pilot study including 30 adolescents aged 15-18, comparing three groups: DFI, an educational intervention, and a control group with no treatment. Assessments included a driving simulator, EEG, and Tobii Pro Glasses 2. Evaluation was conducted pre- and post-intervention and at a 3-month follow-up. Results indicated that the DFI group significantly improved in the simulated driving performance, attentional effort, and focused gaze time. The findings underscore that holistic strategies with personalized, comprehensive approaches for adolescents with ADHD are particularly effective in improving driving performance. These outcomes not only affirm the feasibility of the DFI but also highlight the critical role of sensor technologies in accurately measuring and enhancing simulator driving performance in adolescents with ADHD. Outcomes suggest a promising direction for future research and application.

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Background

Road Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high-income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence-based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high-income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.

Objectives

The objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.

Search Methods

The EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.

Selection Criteria

The interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post-crash pre-hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non-fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.

Data Collection and Analysis

The EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case-control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post-crash pre-hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non-fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety-six percent of the studies were reported from high-income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper-middle-income countries, and only 1.4% from lower-middle and low-income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.

Authors' Conclusions

The EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence-synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

Simulator Driving Abilities, Executive Functions, and Adaptive Behavior Among Adolescents With Complex Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVE

To examines the driving skills, executive functions, and adaptive behavior of adolescents diagnosed with Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) combined with emotional difficulties and/or learning disabilities (complex ADHD), compared to adolescents without ADHD.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study including 30 adolescents with complex ADHD and 33 adolescents without ADHD aged 15 to 18 years. Driving skills on a simulator, executive functions, and adaptive behavior were evaluated.

RESULTS

Adolescents without ADHD demonstrated significantly higher total scores on the driving simulator, indicating better driving performance compared to adolescents with complex ADHD. In the complex ADHD group, after controlling for different Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scale-Self Report scales, driving simulator scores were partially correlated with executive functions.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasize the unique needs of adolescents with complex ADHD. Given the significance of driving in today's society, it is crucial to consider the development of intervention programs to support this population's driving skills.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Online and Intellectual Awareness of Executive Functioning in Daily Life among Adolescents with and without ADHD

OBJECTIVE

Executive function deficits (EFD) are a central mechanism underlying negative outcomes in ADHD. This study examined awareness of EFD manifested in "real-time" task performance (Online Awareness) and in general self-knowledge of daily activities, outside the context of a specific task (Intellectual Awareness) among adolescents with and without ADHD.

METHODS

102 adolescents with (n = 52) and without (n = 50) ADHD were administered Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA) and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). Parents completed the BRIEF parent version. Awareness was defined using the discrepancy paradigm: performance versus estimation on WCPA for online awareness; self versus parent report on the BRIEF for intellectual awareness.

RESULTS

Adolescents with ADHD overestimated their performance on the WCPA and underestimated their EFD on the BRIEF compared to parent's ratings. The discrepancy scores in both types of awareness were significantly larger among ADHD than controls (p < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents with ADHD demonstrate significantly lower rates of online and intellectual awareness of EFD compared to controls.

Assessment of cognitive instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Cognitive instrumental activities of daily living are particularly related to executive functions, such as scheduling appointments, monthly payments, managing the household economy, shopping or taking the bus. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the available tests for the assessment of executive functions with ecological validity to predict individuals' functioning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, PsyCInfo and IEEE Xplore until May 2019, in addition to a manual search. The PRISMA criteria and the Covidence platform were used to select articles and extract data.

RESULTS

After applying the search selection criteria, 76 studies were identified. They referred to 110 tools to assess instrumental activities of daily living. Those that have received most attention are related to menu preparation and shopping. Performance-based measures are the most widely used traditional methods. Most tests were aimed at the adult population with acquired brain damage, cognitive impairment or dementia. There was a predominance of tests based on the Multiple Errands Test paradigm.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, it has increased the number of tools that assess the instrumental activities of daily living based on technologies such as personal or environmental sensors and serious games.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAssessment of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living through performance-based measures is especially useful for the early detection of dysfunctions or preclinical disability.Difficulties in performing instrumental activities of daily living are closely associated with deficits in executive functions and prospective memory.Activities of Daily Living can be understood as multitasks.The use of virtual reality-based tests was shown to be sensitive to the detection of cognitive deficits in Activities of Daily Living.An advantage of using virtual reality in assessments is that it can help to predict the level of personal autonomy in patients who are in an institutional environment and could be a first approximation to the real environment.

Gaze Control During Simulator Driving in Adolescents With and Without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Importance: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with driving deficits. Visual standards for driving define minimum qualifications for safe driving, including acuity and field of vision, but they do not consider the ability to explore the environment efficiently by shifting the gaze, which is a critical element of safe driving.

Objective: To examine visual exploration during simulated driving in adolescents with and without ADHD.

Design: Adolescents with and without ADHD drove a driving simulator for approximately 10 min while their gaze was monitored. They then completed a battery of questionnaires.

Setting: University lab.

Participants: Participants with (n = 16) and without (n = 15) ADHD were included. Participants had a history of neurological disorders other than ADHD and normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Control participants reported not having a diagnosis of ADHD. Participants with ADHD had been previously diagnosed by a qualified professional.

Outcomes and Measures: We compared the following measures between ADHD and non-ADHD groups: dashboard dwell times, fixation variance, entropy, and fixation duration.

Results: Findings showed that participants with ADHD were more restricted in their patterns of exploration than control group participants. They spent considerably more time gazing at the dashboard and had longer periods of fixation with lower variability and randomness.

Conclusions and Relevance: The results support the hypothesis that adolescents with ADHD engage in less active exploration during simulated driving.

What This Article Adds: This study raises concerns regarding the driving competence of people with ADHD and opens up new directions for potential training programs that focus on exploratory gaze control.