Aims: In this study, we investigated if health professionals’ evaluations of driving ability corresponded with measures of severity of alcohol use and measures of cognitive functions necessary for safely driving a car. Methods: A total of 90 participants from a multicentre study were included. Participants were categorised into three groups: (1) the group judged fit to drive (FIT); (2) the group judged not fit to drive (UNFIT); and (3) the group who had lost their driver's licence due to legal sanctions (LEGAL). The participants’ AUDIT scores, earlier treatment episodes and results from neuropsychological tests of reaction time, attention and visuospatial ability were included in the analyses. Results: We found a significant difference in the severity of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and visuospatial abilities between the FIT and UNFIT groups. Half of the UNFIT group had at least mild visuospatial difficulties, compared to only a quarter in the FIT group. There were no group differences in reaction time or attentional measures. The LEGAL group had more severe AUD than the other groups. Conclusion: The FIT group did not perform differently from the UNFIT group on attention and reaction time measures. The UNFIT group had more visuospatial impairments, but even half of this group had normal scores. It is uncertain whether the differences between the two groups are of practical significance. The quality of health professionals’ evaluations may be questioned, and the results highlight the need for more reliable and valid criteria for doing fitness to drive evaluations.

中文翻译：

---

酒精使用障碍和适合驾驶：卫生专业人员的评估与酒精使用和认知功能的客观测量之间的差异

目的：在这项研究中，我们调查了健康专业人员对驾驶能力的评估是否与饮酒严重程度的测量以及安全驾驶汽车所需的认知功能的测量相对应。方法：一项多中心研究共纳入 90 名参与者。参与者被分为三组：（1）被判定适合驾驶（FIT）的组；（2）被判定为不适宜驾驶的群体（UNFIT）；(3) 因法律制裁（LEGAL）而吊销驾驶执照的群体。分析中包括参与者的 AUDIT 评分、早期治疗次数以及反应时间、注意力和视觉空间能力的神经心理学测试结果。结果：我们发现 FIT 组和 UNFIT 组之间酒精使用障碍 (AUD) 的严重程度和视觉空间能力存在显着差异。UNFIT 组中有一半的人至少有轻微的视觉空间困难，而 FIT 组中只有四分之一的人有这种情况。反应时间或注意力测量没有组间差异。LEGAL 组的 AUD 比其他组更严重。结论：FIT 组在注意力和反应时间测量方面与 UNFIT 组没有差异。UNFIT 组有更多的视觉空间障碍，但该组中甚至有一半的人得分正常。尚不确定两组之间的差异是否具有实际意义。卫生专业人员评估的质量可能会受到质疑，结果强调需要更可靠和有效的标准来进行健康评估以推动评估。