Search

Background: Stroke sequelae can have an impact on daily life activities such as driving. French legislation stipulates that post-stroke patients should undergo a multi-professional fitness-to-drive assessment before being allowed to drive again. This retrospective study aims to explore the determinants of multi-professional fitness-to-drive recommendations., Methods: Sixty-six post-stroke patients assessed for fitness to drive in the Kerpape Center, France in 2019 were included. Favorable or unfavorable driving recommendations were attributed to patients following a joint decision by a multi-professional team. Individual characteristics obtained from medical records were compared., Results: Findings showed that 64% of stroke patients received a favorable fitness-to-drive recommendation. Across all demographic, clinical, and driving characteristics, the time interval between stroke and assessment was significantly longer for patients designated as unfit to drive than for those designated as fit to drive (P = .004). Furthermore, the proportion of instrumental sequelae was higher in patients designated as unfit to drive than in those designated as fit to drive (P = .022). Stepwise logistic regression showed that the presence of instrumental sequelae, mainly aphasia, was the best predictor of fitness-to-drive recommendations., Conclusions: The post-stroke time interval and the presence of instrumental sequelae explained the difference between patients recommended as fit-to-drive and unfit-to-drive. Furthermore, aphasia was found be the best predictor of a fitness-to-drive recommendation. It is possible that aphasia impacts the understanding of instructions during on-road testing. These findings emphasize the need for a standardized multi-professional fitness-to-drive assessment, since the determinants of fitness-to-drive recommendation differ between studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest with respect to the present study., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)