Mobile Telephone Use and Reaction Time in Drivers With Glaucoma

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
9
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
Autores
DAGA, Fabio B.
JAMMAL, Alessandro A.
BOER, Erwin R.
HILL, Linda L.
STRINGHAM, James M.
MEDEIROS, Felipe A.
Citação
JAMA NETWORK OPEN, v.2, n.4, article ID e192169, 10p, 2019
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
IMPORTANCE Combining mobile telephone use with driving is not unusual. However, distracted driving limits driving performance because of limited capacity for persons to divide attention. OBJECTIVES To investigate the frequency of mobile telephone use while driving and to assess whether patients with glaucoma had a disproportionate decrease in driving performance while conversing on a mobile telephone compared with healthy participants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional study of surveys collected from 112 patients with glaucoma and 70 control participants investigating mobile telephone use while driving. A randomly selected subgroup of 37 patients with glaucoma and 28 controls drove in a driving simulator to investigate peripheral event detection performance during distracted driving at the Visual Performance Laboratory, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Data collection was performed from December 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. EXPOSURES Participants answered a survey and submitted to a driving simulation test with and without mobile telephone use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survey answers were collected, and distracted driving performance, assessed by reaction time to peripheral stimuli, was analyzed. RESULTS Of the 182 participants who answered the survey, the 112 participants with glaucoma included 56 women (50.0%) and had a mean (SD) age of 73.6 (9.6) years. The 70 controls included 49 women (70.0%) and had a mean (SD) age of 68.4 (10.9) years. When asked about mobile telephone use while driving, 30 patients with glaucoma (26.8%) admitted rarely using and 2 (1.8%) sometimes using it. In the control group, 20 participants (28.6%) admitted rarely using and 2 (2.9%) sometimes using the telephone while driving (P = .80). Reaction times to peripheral stimuli were significantly longer among patients with glaucoma compared with controls during mobile telephone use (median [interquartile range], 1.86 [1.42-2.29] seconds vs 1.14 [0.98-1.59] seconds; P = .02). Compared with driving performance while not using a mobile telephone, the mean (SD) increase of 0.85 (0.60) second in reaction time while conversing on the mobile telephone among patients with glaucoma was significantly greater than the mean (SD) increase of 0.68 (0.83) second for controls (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study's findings indicate that patients with glaucoma use mobile telephones while driving as frequently as healthy participants. However, the findings also suggest that patients with glaucoma may experience a greater decline than healthy participants in their ability to detect peripheral events while driving when also talking on a mobile telephone. Patients with glaucoma should be informed that they may have a higher driving risk that may be worsened by distractions, such as mobile telephone use.
Palavras-chave
Referências
  1. BADDELEY AD, 1968, PSYCHON SCI, V10, P341
  2. Casagrande VA, 2005, PROG BRAIN RES, V149, P11, DOI 10.1016/S0079-6123(05)49002-0
  3. Corbetta M, 1998, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V95, P831, DOI 10.1073/pnas.95.3.831
  4. Diniz A, 2016, TRANSL VIS SCI TECHN, V5, DOI 10.1167/tvst.5.6.15
  5. Drummond SPA, 2003, NEUROREPORT, V14, P1117, DOI 10.1097/01.wnr.0000075422.59944.b2
  6. Engelberg JK, 2015, J TRANSP HEALTH, V2, P434, DOI 10.1016/j.jth.2015.05.002
  7. Fisher DL, 042 NETC
  8. Fonda SJ, 2001, J GERONTOL B-PSYCHOL, V56, pS343, DOI 10.1093/geronb/56.6.S343
  9. Gangeddula V, 2017, FRONT AGING NEUROSCI, V9, DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00286
  10. Gracitelli CPB, 2015, PLOS ONE, V10, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0138288
  11. Hill L, 2015, TRAFFIC INJ PREV, V16, P362, DOI 10.1080/15389588.2014.949340
  12. Ishigami Y, 2009, J SAFETY RES, V40, P157, DOI 10.1016/j.jsr.2009.02.006
  13. Klein J, 2015, PLOS ONE, V10, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0128681
  14. Lenne MG, 1997, ACCIDENT ANAL PREV, V29, P431, DOI 10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00022-5
  15. Martens M, 2000, MEASURING DISTRACTIO
  16. McGehee DV, 2000, P IEA 2000 HFES 2000, V44, P320, DOI 10.1177/154193120004402026
  17. Muttart JW, 2007, TRANSP RES RECORD, P9, DOI 10.3141/2018-02
  18. National Safety Council, ANN EST CELL PHON CR
  19. Nelson-Quigg JM, 2000, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V41, P2212
  20. POSNER MI, 1990, ANNU REV NEUROSCI, V13, P25, DOI 10.1146/annurev.neuro.13.1.25
  21. Ragland DR, 2005, J GERONTOL A-BIOL, V60, P399, DOI 10.1093/gerona/60.3.399
  22. Ramulu PY, 2009, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V116, P1846, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.03.033
  23. Recarte MA, 2000, J EXP PSYCHOL-APPL, V6, P31, DOI 10.1037//0278-7393.6.1.31
  24. Reed MP, 1999, ERGONOMICS, V42, P1015, DOI 10.1080/001401399185117
  25. Szlyk JP, 2002, J REHABIL RES DEV, V39, P467
  26. Tatham AJ, 2015, TRANSL VIS SCI TECHN, V4, DOI 10.1167/tvst.4.3.5
  27. Tatham AJ, 2014, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V158, P1008, DOI 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.07.028
  28. Vega RP, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0077294
  29. Wang Y, 2010, ERGONOMICS, V53, P404, DOI 10.1080/00140130903464358
  30. Weinreb RN, 2014, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V311, P1901, DOI 10.1001/jama.2014.3192
  31. Woo TH, 2001, IATSS RES INT ASS TR, V25, P15, DOI [10.1016/S0386-1112(14)60066-2, DOI 10.1016/S0386-1112(14)60066-2]
  32. World Med Assoc, 2013, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V310, P2191, DOI 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
  33. Yucel YH, 2003, PROG RETIN EYE RES, V22, P465, DOI 10.1016/S1350-9462(03)00026-0
  34. ZEGER SL, 1986, BIOMETRICS, V42, P121, DOI 10.2307/2531248