Evaluation of driving fitness using driving simulators in patients with right-hemisphere damage: an unmatched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with right hemisphere damage (RHD) may exhibit mild unilateral spatial neglect (USN), which is difficult to detect in general assessments performed during driving rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: We compared driving simulator performance, practical driving performance, and neuropsychological test results between patients with RHD who were able and unable to return to driving to predict driving fitness based on driving simulator performance. METHODS: This unmatched case-control study included 29 patients with RHD who were able (return-to-driving group, n = 16) and unable (non-return-to-driving group, n = 13) to return to driving. Patient demographics, motor function, attention, driving simulator performance (participants' reaction time and rate to green lamps appearing in any of the three displays and average lane position), and practical driving performance were compared between the groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to examine the predictive performance of driving fitness in reaction rate and paper-and-pencil tests. RESULTS: The non-return-to-driving group had a significantly lower reaction rate than the return-to-driving group (p = 0.027; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0-7; r = 0.407). No significant difference in reaction time or lane position in either the left or right lane during driving simulation was observed. ROC analysis of the reaction rate in the driving simulator task showed sensitivity of 0.692, specificity of 0.812, and area under the curve of 0.738 [95% CI, 0.541-0.935]. CONCLUSIONS: Decreases in reaction rates during simulated driving assessments are associated with an inability to resume driving in patients with RHD. Such assessments may aid in predicting fitness for driving in these patients.

A multicenter explanatory survey of patients' and clinicians' perceptions of motivational factors in rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Patient motivation is an important determinant of rehabilitation outcomes. Differences in patients' and clinicians' perceptions of motivational factors can potentially hinder patient-centered care. Therefore, we aimed to compare patients' and clinicians' perceptions of the most important factors in motivating patients for rehabilitation. METHODS: This multicenter explanatory survey research was conducted from January to March 2022. In 13 hospitals with an intensive inpatient rehabilitation ward, 479 patients with neurological or orthopedic disorders undergoing inpatient rehabilitation and 401 clinicians, including physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language-hearing therapists, were purposively selected using inclusion criteria. The participants were asked to choose the most important factor motivating patients for rehabilitation from a list of potential motivational factors. RESULTS: Here we show that realization of recovery, goal setting, and practice related to the patient's experience and lifestyle are the three factors most frequently selected as most important by patients and clinicians. Only five factors are rated as most important by 5% of clinicians, whereas nine factors are selected by 5% of patients. Of these nine motivational factors, medical information (p < 0.001; phi = -0.14; 95% confidence interval = -0.20 to -0.07) and control of task difficulty (p = 0.011; phi = -0.09; 95% confidence interval = -0.16 to -0.02) are selected by a significantly higher proportion of patients than clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that when determining motivational strategies, rehabilitation clinicians should consider individual patient preferences in addition to using the core motivational factors supported by both parties.

Rehabilitation is the interventions needed to restore the abilities required for daily life following illness or injury. Patients and clinicians who provide these interventions may have different ideas about what encourages patients to engage in rehabilitation. It is important to understand what motivates patients and any differences in opinion between patients and clinicians. We asked patients and clinicians about the most important motivational factors. All agreed that realizing recovery is possible, setting goals or targets for the stages of recovery, and targeting interventions relevant to the patient's experience and lifestyle were the most important motivational factors. The patients also found access to medical information and being able to control the difficulty of tasks required during rehabilitation motivating. These findings could help clinicians provide rehabilitation care that is more specifically tailored to each patient's needs and preferences.

Reliability and Validity of the Japanese Version of the Assessment of Readiness for Mobility Transition (ARMT-J) for Japanese Elderly.

The Assessment of Readiness for Mobility Transition (ARMT) questionnaire assesses individuals' emotional and attitudinal readiness related to mobility as they age. This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the ARMT (ARMT-J). The ARMT-J and related variables were administered to 173 patients and staff members undergoing rehabilitation at hospitals in Japan. Construct validity was first examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm cross-cultural validity. For structural validity, the optimal number of factors was confirmed using a Velicer's minimum average partial test and parallel analysis, followed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Finally, a CFA was performed using the most appropriate model. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), and smallest detectable change (SDC) were assessed for reliability. The CFA fit for the factor structure of the original ARMT was low. Therefore, the EFA was conducted with two to four factors. The optimal factor structure was three factors, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Cohen's weighted kappa coefficient of 0.85 and 0.76, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the test-retest was 0.93, the SEM was 0.72, and the SDC was 2.00. The model fit was good for the ARMT-J, with a three-factor structure.