Skip to main content
PMC home page
Healthcare logoLink to Healthcare
. 2023 Feb 14;11(4):563. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11040563

Health Status and Activity Discomfort among Elderly Drivers: Reality of Health Awareness

Sang-Hoon Jeong 1,2,†, Eun-Yeob Kim 1,†, Seung-Jin Lee 3, Woo-June Choi 3, Chilhwan Oh 1,4, Hwa-Jung Sung 5, Jaeyoung Kim 1,2,*
Editors: César Leal-Costa, Tao-Hsin Tung
PMCID: PMC9957144  PMID: 36833097

Abstract

As the number of elderly drivers rapidly increases worldwide, interest in the dangers of driving is growing as accidents rise. The purpose of this study was to conduct a statistical analysis of the driving risk factors of elderly drivers. In this analysis, data from the government organization’s open data were used for the secondary processing of 10,097 people. Of the 9990 respondents, 2168 were current drivers, 1552 were past drivers but were not driving presently, and 6270 did not have a driver’s license; the participants were divided into groups accordingly. The elderly drivers who were current drivers had a better subjective health status than those who were not. Visual and hearing aids were used in the current driving group, and their depression symptoms reduced as they drove. The elderly who were current drivers experienced difficulties while driving in terms of decreased vision, hearing loss, reduced arm/leg reaction speed, decreased judgment of the road conditions such as signals and intersections, and a decreased sense of speed. The results suggest that elderly drivers are unaware of the medical conditions that can negatively affect their driving. This study contributes to the safety management of elderly drivers by understanding their mental and physical status.

Keywords: elderly, driving risk, medical conditions, recognition, discomfort, health

1. Introduction

Globally, the number of elderly drivers aged 65 and over was 7685 million in 2019, accounting for 14.9% of the total population [1]. This number is rapidly and continuously increasing. Therefore, as many accidents occur among elderly drivers, interest in the dangers of driving is increasing [2]. One study reported that elderly people with a driver’s license can improve their independence by self-driving: thus, increasing their autonomy in participating in old-age activities [3]. Among the elderly, driving is considered an essential action that expands the scope of activities, such as leisure activities, visits to hospitals, and shopping, and provides opportunities for independence in their daily lives [4]. In this way, elderly drivers have positive emotional and social functions, given the increasing opportunities for social activities [5]. Thus, elderly people who drive themselves are considered to have a relatively high level of life satisfaction [6]. Approximately 30,000 cases were reported in 2018 in the Republic of Korea, and this number is continuously increasing [7,8]. When accidents occur, the elderly suffer serious injuries and have a slow recovery rate compared to young people [2,4]. As such, elderly drivers have a high risk of traffic accidents, and their anxiety about accidents is severe compared to the other age groups [5,9].

The ability of elderly drivers to self-regulate changes in their driving ability by becoming more aware of and managing their health status is naturally strengthened with increasing age [10]. Nevertheless, the reliability of elderly drivers’ awareness of their health status and driving ability is controversial [11]. In countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, a self-reporting evaluation method was used to investigate the characteristics of elderly drivers [12,13]. Although they tend to avoid certain driving situations, such as night driving, long-distance driving, and driving when the roads are congested [8,14,15], they are affected by society and the culture to which they belong [16]. Some studies analyzed changes in behavior, cognition, perception, and physical function of elderly drivers while driving using the Self-report Assessment Forecasting Elderly Driving Risk (SAFE-DR), which was developed to assess the situation in the Republic of Korea [15,17,18].

Owing to medical advances and changes in the social environment, the proportion of elderly drivers is rapidly increasing and will continue to increase [1]. If elderly drivers are not aware of their physical changes and do not avail themselves of treatment in a timely manner, it interferes with their driving ability [5] and, consequently, increases the risk of accidents. This study aimed to analyze the physical characteristics, underlying diseases, and health consciousness of elderly drivers to identify their mental and physical conditions and help prevent traffic accidents. In addition, the researchers provide basic data for related research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Sampling

The data for this study were obtained from the Health and Welfare Data Portal of the Korea Institute of Health and Social Affairs and included the data of 10,097 elderly people in the Republic of Korea aged 65 years and over (National Statistics approval no. 117071). A total of 10,097 people were surveyed; 107 people who did not drive were excluded from the total, and the remaining 9990 people were divided into three groups: 2168 people who were currently driving, 1552 people who were past drivers but were not currently driving at the time of the survey, and 6270 people who had no driver’s license. Those with the highest age of elderly drivers at the time of the survey were selected and further classified as those without a driver’s license, past drivers, or not current drivers, who were at the time of the survey. The participants’ ages ranged from 65–90 years (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Data cleaning process flow.

2.2. Data Variables

The data description of the variables used in this study is as follows:

  • (1)

    Driving status, which was divided into two groups: past drivers (not currently driving) and not having a driver’s license.

  • (2)

    Health status and health behavior, which included thoughts on health in general; presence of chronic diseases (diseases lasting for more than 3 months as diagnosed by a doctor, namely circulatory diseases: high blood pressure, stroke (stroke, cerebral infarction), hyperlipidemia (dyslipidemia), angina pectoris, and myocardial infarction (heart failure and arrhythmia); endocrinal disease: diabetes and thyroid disease; musculoskeletal diseases: osteoarthritis (degenerative arthritis), rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, low back pain, sciatica, fracture, dislocation, and after effects of accidents; respiratory diseases: chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, pulmonary tuberculosis, and tuberculosis, neuropsychiatric diseases: depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and insomnia; sensory diseases: cataract, glaucoma, chronic otitis media, senile deafness, skin disease, and cancer (malignant neoplasm); digestive diseases: gastroduodenal ulcer, hepatitis, and liver cirrhosis; genitourinary diseases: chronic kidney disease, prostatic hyperplasia, urinary incontinence, and anemia, etc.

  • (3)

    State of physical function, including eyesight (watching TV, reading newspapers), hearing (talking on the phone, talking to the person next to you), chewing (chewing meat or hard things), and determining muscle strength (active movement (running about one lap (400 m) on the playground), walking around the playground (400 m), climbing 10 steps without a break, bending over, squatting, or kneeling, and reaching out for something higher than one’s head). Physical functioning was divided into lifting, moving, and disability determination.

  • (4)

    Depressive symptoms were measured using the shortened geriatric depression scale (SGDS)-K15, which is a Korean translation of the SGDS developed by [19] to evaluate depressive symptoms in the elderly population (out of a total score of 15, individuals with a score of 8 or higher were classified as having depressive symptoms).

  • (5)

    Social activities and discomfort in social activities were classified into two categories, namely, difficulty in using the information necessary for life and the inconvenience caused by using information technology in everyday life.

  • (6)

    Economic activity was classified into current income, work, and desired work.

  • (7)

    Precognitive function: cognitive function was confirmed and measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination for Dementia Screening (MMSE-DS) test tool. A representative screening test developed by [20] is widely used for simple and rapid measurement as well as screening for any cognitive impairment; the standardized Korean version of the mini-mental state examination (MMSE-K) [21], the Korean mini-mental state examination (K-MMSE) [22], and the mini-mental state examination-Korean children (MMSE-KC) [23] have been used in the Republic of Korea. A total mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 30 points is considered the cut-off point for cognitive impairment; a score of 0–10 indicates severe cognitive impairment, 10–20 indicates moderate cognitive impairment, 20–24 indicates mild cognitive impairment, and 24–30 indicates no cognitive impairment [14].

  • (8)

    General characteristics, such as gender, height (cm), weight (kg), body mass index (kg/m²), drinking, smoking, education level, subjective age of the elderly, suicidal ideation, and health-type factors, were obtained.

2.3. Data Analysis

All continuous variables in this study are expressed as standard deviation mean (SD), and categorical variables are expressed as percentages (%) in their respective groups. A normality test was performed, and the significance of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk was lower than the p-value of 0.05, so it was judged to be non-normal. The difference between all dependent variables, according to the presence or absence of driving, was verified using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Chi-square test (frequency was 20.0% over performing a Fisher’s exact test). For the analysis, we used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and the statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The elderly who currently drive had a better subjective health status than those who did not. Among the current drivers, seven people had severe disabilities (grades 1–3), 44 had moderate disabilities (grades 4–6), 32 had physical disabilities, 11 had hearing impairments, three had visual impairments, and two had respiratory problems. At the time of the data investigation, most of the diseases had been cured, but there were differences between the groups in the treatment status of diabetes and chronic diseases, such as back pain, sciatica, pulmonary tuberculosis, and tuberculosis. The people who were not driving had more chronic diseases. In the currently driving group, the use of visual and hearing aids was 52.7% and 7.7%, respectively. Among the participants, 25.9% had discomfort due to bad eyesight, 15.1% had a hearing discomfort, and 28.0% experienced discomfort due to bending, squatting, kneeling, or reaching out for something higher than their heads. Of the respondents, 19.5% reported that it was difficult to perform touch movements. Depression symptoms decreased as they drove, and cognitive function was better in the driving group than in the other groups; however, it was also lower than the cut-off points for those over the age of 80. Among the elderly who were current drivers, 12.0% said that they experienced difficulties while driving in terms of decreased vision, hearing loss, decreased arm/leg reaction speed, decreased judgment (understanding of road conditions such as signals and intersections), and sense of speed. In other words, to prevent accidents due to aging, it is necessary to contribute to the safety management of elderly drivers by identifying their mental and physical conditions through precise identification of their mental and physical conditions.

3.1. General Characteristics

The general characteristics of the study participants were as follows: “current drivers” included 1729 men and 439 women; “past drivers but not current drivers” included 1237 men and 315 women; and 1045 men and 5225 women had “no driver’s license”. There was a difference between the groups with regard to age: “current drivers” 69.3(4.22), “past drivers but not current drivers” 74.08(5.74), and “no driver’s license” 74.58(6.54) (p < 0.001). Regarding the subjectively considered age of the elderly, there was a difference between the groups: 71.32(4.60) were “current drivers”, 69.72(4.14) were “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 70.02(4.04) had “no driver’s license” (p < 0.001). There was a difference in the presence or absence of disability determination as follows: 51 people were “current drivers”, 92 were “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 301 people had “no driver’s license” (p < 0.001). Regarding the degree of disability, “current drivers” comprised 7 people with severe disability (grades 1–3) and 44 people with moderate disability (grades 4–6); “past drivers but not current drivers” comprised 29 people with severe disability (grades 1–3) and 63 people with moderate disability (4–6); those with “no driver’s license” comprised 68 people with severe disability (1–3) and 233 people with moderate disability (4–6), exhibiting a group difference of p = 0.046. As for the usual subjective health status, 1598 people said they were “current drivers”, 749 people stated they were “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 2576 people stated they had “no driver’s license”; the perceived health difference was p < 0.001 (Table 1).

Table 1.

General characteristics of the participants.

Characteristics Driving
Current Drivers Past But Not Current Drivers No Driver’s License X2 3/H 4 p-Value
N 5/M 1 %/SD 2 N/M %/SD N/M %/SD
Sex Man 1729 79.8 1237 79.7 1045 16.7 3864.248 <0.001
Female 439 20.2 315 20.3 5225 83.3
Height (cm) 167.68 6.77 166.22 6.92 157.29 7.13 3209.849 <0.001
Weight (kg) 66.74 7.56 65.02 7.78 58.29 7.98 1940.261 <0.001
Body mass index (BMI) 23.71 2.09 23.52 2.35 23.55 2.82 13.557 0.001
Age (years) 69.34 4.22 74.08 5.74 74.58 6.54 1192.218 <0.001
Recognition of elderly age criteria 71.32 4.60 69.72 4.14 70.02 4.04 167.758 <0.001
Education Level Uneducated (not reading) 0 0 7 0.5 297 4.7 2320.532 <0.001
Uneducated (reading) 10 0.5 50 3.2 739 11.8
Elementary school 261 12.0 394 25.4 2694 43.0
Middle school 483 22.3 431 27.8 1447 23.1
High school 1109 51.2 544 35.1 1013 16.2
College 126 5.8 41 2.6 36 0.6
University 179 8.3 85 5.5 44 0.7
Disability Yes 51 2.4 92 5.9 301 4.8 32.257 <0.001
No 2117 97.6 1460 94.1 5969 95.2
Degree of disability Severe disability
(1–3 degree)		 7 13.7 29 31.5 68 22.6 6.154 0.046
Moderate disability
(4–6 degree)		 44 86.3 63 68.5 233 77.4
Disability type Mental retardation 32 62.7 50 54.3 175 58.1 - -
Brain lesion disorder 1 2.0 8 8.7 19 6.3
Visual impairment 3 5.9 6 6.5 26 8.6
Deafness 11 21.6 16 17.4 51 16.9
Speech disorders 0 0.0 1 1.1 4 1.3
Intellectual disability 0 0.0 1 1.1 5 1.7
Autistic disorders 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Mental disorders 0 0.0 1 1.1 6 2.0
Renal failure 1 2.0 2 2.2 6 2.0
Heart disorders 0 0.0 2 2.2 5 1.7
Respiratory disorders 2 3.9 3 3.3 1 0.3
Hepatic impairment 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Facial disorders 0 0.0 1 1.1 0 0.0
Stoma disorder 1 2.0 1 1.1 2 0.7
Epilepsy disorder 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3
Regular exercise Yes 1364 62.9 910 58.6 2951 47.1 191.752 <0.001
No 804 37.1 642 41.4 3319 52.9
Exercise time(min) / (1 time) 57 28 48 28 44 24 272.011 <0.001
Exercise frequency in
1 week		 1 time 40 2.9 15 1.6 58 2.0 25.204 0.014
2 times 141 10.3 85 9.3 242 8.2
3 times 287 21.0 207 22.7 595 20.2
4 times 102 7.5 63 6.9 222 7.5
5 times 370 27.1 212 23.3 794 26.9
6 times 93 6.8 86 9.5 270 9.1
7 times 331 24.3 242 26.6 770 26.1
Smoking Yes 514 23.7 278 17.9 310 4.9 666.616 <0.001
No 1654 76.3 1274 82.1 5960 95.1
Average amount of alcohol consumed (oz) 4.46 2.40 4.07 2.17 3.21 1.98 290.814 <0.001
Health status Very healthy 247 11.4 54 3.5 131 2.1 889.457 <0.001
Healthy 1351 62.5 695 45.6 2445 39.8
Normal 450 20.8 497 32.6 2139 34.8
Bad 113 5.2 234 15.4 1286 20.9
Very bad 1 0.0 43 2.8 145 2.4
Open in a new tab

1 M: average, 2 SD: standard deviation, 3 X2: Chi-square test, 4 H: Kruskal-Wallis test, 5 N; frequency, p-value < 0.05.

3.2. Current Disease Status and Their Treatment

The results of the current disease status and whether there were patients receiving treatment are as follows: although there were differences in most diseases, treatment was completed at the time of investigation; however, there was a difference between the groups in the presence or absence of treatment for diabetes (p = 0.01), musculoskeletal diseases (back pain, sciatica) (p < 0.001), and respiratory diseases (pulmonary tuberculosis, tuberculosis) (p = 0.037). The total number of chronic diseases diagnosed by doctors was 1.37 (1.24) for “current drivers”, 1.78 (1.50) for “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 2.02 (1.50) for “no driver’s license” exhibiting differences between the groups (p < 0.001). The number of prescription drugs being taken for more than 3 months was 1.31 (1.20) for “current drivers”, 1.78 (1.74) for “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 1.94 (1.55) for “no driver’s license” (p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Health status and health behavior.

Characteristics Driving X2 3/H 4 p-Value
Current Drivers Past But Not Current Drivers No Driver’s License
N 5/M 1 %/SD 2 N/M %/SD N/M %/SD
Doctor’s diagnosis of hypertension Yes 1134 52.3 899 57.9 3710 59.2 31.204 <0.001
No 1034 47.7 653 42.1 2560 40.8
Treatment of hypertension Yes 1121 98.9 893 99.3 3657 98.6 3.518 0.172
No 13 1.1 6 0.7 53 1.4
Doctor’s diagnosis of stroke
(Stroke, cerebral infarction)		 Yes 37 1.7 81 5.2 295 4.7 41.999 <0.001
No 2131 98.3 1471 94.8 5975 95.3
Treatment of stroke
(Stroke, cerebral infarction)		 Yes 37 100.0 80 98.8 285 96.6 2.251 0.325
No 0 0.0 1 1.2 10 3.4
Doctor’s diagnosis of hyperlipidemia
(dyslipidemia)		 Yes 324 14.9 193 12.4 1188 18.9 46.082 <0.001
No 1844 85.1 1359 87.6 5082 81.1
Treatment of hyperlipidemia
(dyslipidemia)		 Yes 313 96.6 190 98.4 1164 98.0 2.662 0.264
No 11 3.4 3 1.6 24 2.0
Doctor’s diagnosis of angina pectoris and
myocardial infarction		 Yes 76 3.5 69 4.4 312 5.0 8.050 0.018
No 2092 96.5 1483 95.6 5958 95.0
Treatment of angina pectoris and
myocardial infarction		 Yes 74 97.4 67 97.1 306 98.1 0.335 0.846
No 2 2.6 2 2.9 6 1.9
Doctor’s diagnosis of heart diseases Yes 65 3.0 63 4.1 329 5.2 19.785 <0.001
No 2103 97.0 1489 95.9 5941 94.8
Treatment of heart diseases Yes 63 96.9 62 98.4 327 99.4 3.222 0.200
No 2 3.1 1 1.6 2 0.6
Doctor’s diagnosis of diabetes Yes 421 19.4 401 25.8 1581 25.2 32.829 <0.001
No 1747 80.6 1151 74.2 4689 74.8
Treatment of diabetes Yes 419 99.5 401 100.0 1557 98.5 8.644 0.013
No 2 0.5 0 0.0 24 1.5
Doctor’s diagnosis of thyroid disease Yes 36 1.7 38 2.4 235 3.7 25.968 <0.001
No 2132 98.3 1514 97.6 6035 96.3
Treatment of thyroid disease Yes 34 94.4 37 97.4 231 98.3 2.120 0.346
No 2 5.6 1 2.6 4 1.7
Doctor’s diagnosis of osteoarthritis
(Degenerative arthritis)		 Yes 140 6.5 143 9.2 1288 20.5 299.936 <0.001
No 2028 93.5 1409 90.8 4982 79.5
Treatment of osteoarthritis
(Degenerative arthritis)		 Yes 126 90.0 133 93.0 1193 92.6 1.318 0.517
No 14 10.0 10 7.0 95 7.4
Doctor’s diagnosis of osteoporosis Yes 50 2.3 73 4.7 701 11.2 198.134 <0.001
No 2118 97.7 1479 95.3 5569 88.8
Treatment of osteoporosis Yes 44 88.0 68 93.2 650 92.7 1.550 0.461
No 6 12.0 5 6.8 51 7.3
Doctor’s diagnosis of low back pain and sciatica Yes 75 3.5 95 6.1 776 12.4 173.448 <0.001
No 2093 96.5 1457 93.9 5494 87.6
Treatment of low back pain and sciatica Yes 63 84.0 88 92.6 651 83.9 5.048 0.080
No 12 16.0 7 7.4 125 16.1
Doctor’s diagnosis of fracture, dislocation,
and aftereffects of accidents		 Yes 17 0.8 19 1.2 93 1.5 6.242 0.044
No 2151 99.2 1533 98.8 6177 98.5
Treatment of fracture, dislocation,
and aftereffects of accidents		 Yes 15 88.2 16 84.2 83 89.2 0.390 0.823
No 2 11.8 3 15.8 10 10.8
Doctor’s diagnosis of fracture,
chronic bronchitis, and emphysema		 Yes 37 1.7 34 2.2 51 0.8 24.973 <0.001
No 2131 98.3 1518 97.8 6219 99.2
Treatment of chronic bronchitis and emphysema Yes 34 91.9 33 97.1 45 88.2 2.111 0.348
No 3 8.1 1 2.9 6 11.8
Doctor’s diagnosis of asthma Yes 19 0.9 40 2.6 116 1.9 16.151 <0.001
No 2149 99.1 1512 97.4 6154 98.1
Treatment of asthma Yes 17 89.5 37 92.5 110 94.8 0.924 0.630
No 2 10.5 3 7.5 6 5.2
Doctor’s diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis Yes 1 0.0 4 0.3 7 0.1 3.477 0.176
No 2167 100.0 1548 99.7 6263 99.9
Treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis Yes 0 0.0 3 75.0 7 100.0 6.600 0.037
No 1 100.0 1 25.0 0 0.0
Doctor’s diagnosis of depression Yes 6 0.3 22 1.4 113 1.8 26.942 <0.001
No 2162 99.7 1530 98.6 6157 98.2
Treatment of depression Yes 6 100.0 18 81.8 100 88.5 1.634 0.442
No 0 0.0 4 18.2 13 11.5
Doctor’s diagnosis of dementia Yes 8 0.4 27 1.7 137 2.2 31.401 <0.001
No 2160 99.6 1525 98.3 6133 97.8
Treatment of dementia Yes 7 87.5 27 100.0 131 95.6 2.635 0.268
No 1 12.5 0 0.0 6 4.4
Doctor’s diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease Yes 0 0.0 17 1.1 32 0.5 22.371 <0.001
No 2168 100.0 1535 98.9 6238 99.5
Treatment of Parkinson’s disease Yes 0 0.0 17 100.0 32 100.0 - -
No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Doctor’s diagnosis of insomnia Yes 29 1.3 31 2.0 130 2.1 4.764 0.092
No 2139 98.7 1521 98.0 6140 97.9
Treatment of insomnia Yes 22 75.9 25 80.6 106 81.5 0.488 0.784
No 7 24.1 6 19.4 24 18.5
Doctor’s diagnosis of cataract Yes 93 4.3 70 4.5 282 4.5 0.177 0.915
No 2075 95.7 1482 95.5 5988 95.5
Treatment of cataract Yes 78 83.9 57 81.4 205 72.7 6.008 0.050
No 15 16.1 13 18.6 77 27.3
Doctor’s diagnosis of glaucoma Yes 18 0.8 21 1.4 50 0.8 4.465 0.107
No 2150 99.2 1531 98.6 6220 99.2
Treatment of glaucoma Yes 14 77.8 20 95.2 40 80.0 2.914 0.233
No 4 22.2 1 4.8 10 20.0
Doctor’s diagnosis of chronic otitis media Yes 16 0.7 13 0.8 27 0.4 5.261 0.072
No 2152 99.3 1539 99.2 6243 99.6
Treatment of chronic otitis media Yes 16 100.0 13 100.0 26 96.3 1.094 0.579
No 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.7
Doctor’s diagnosis of senile deafness Yes 15 0.7 48 3.1 146 2.3 30.050 <0.001
No 2153 99.3 1504 96.9 6124 97.7
Treatment of senile deafness Yes 9 60.0 33 68.8 83 56.8 2.129 0.345
No 6 40.0 15 31.3 63 43.2
Doctor’s diagnosis of skin disease Yes 23 1.1 15 1.0 29 0.5 11.072 0.004
No 2145 98.9 1537 99.0 6241 99.5
Treatment of skin disease Yes 20 87.0 15 100.0 23 79.3 3.478 0.173
No 3 13.0 0 0.0 6 20.7
Doctor’s diagnosis of cancer
(malignant neoplasm)		 Yes 33 1.5 39 2.5 95 1.5 7.911 0.019
No 2135 98.5 1513 97.5 6175 98.5
Treatment of cancer
(malignant neoplasm)		 Yes 30 90.9 36 92.3 81 85.3 1.345 0.548
No 3 9.1 3 7.7 14 14.7
Doctor’s diagnosis of gastroduodenal ulcer Yes 94 4.3 69 4.4 272 4.3 0.037 0.982
No 2074 95.7 1483 95.6 5998 95.7
Treatment of gastroduodenal ulcer Yes 90 95.7 66 95.7 253 93.0 1.314 0.518
No 4 4.3 3 4.3 19 7.0
Doctor’s diagnosis of hepatitis Yes 6 0.3 5 0.3 22 0.4 0.273 0.873
No 2162 99.7 1547 99.7 6248 99.6
Treatment of hepatitis Yes 5 83.3 3 60.0 21 95.5 4.675 0.056
No 1 16.7 2 40.0 1 4.5
Doctor’s diagnosis of liver cirrhosis Yes 5 0.2 11 0.7 15 0.2 9.434 0.009
No 2163 99.8 1541 99.3 6255 99.8
Treatment of liver cirrhosis Yes 5 100.0 11 100.0 14 93.3 1.428 1.000
No 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.7
Doctor’s diagnosis of chronic kidney disease Yes 9 0.4 30 1.9 55 0.9 23.091 <0.001
No 2159 99.6 1522 98.1 6215 99.1
Treatment of chronic kidney disease Yes 9 100.0 28 93.3 54 98.2 1.663 0.472
No 0 0.0 2 6.7 1 1.8
Doctor’s diagnosis of prostatic hyperplasia Yes 118 5.4 123 7.9 100 1.6 185.803 <0.001
No 2050 94.6 1429 92.1 6170 98.4
Treatment of prostatic hyperplasia Yes 110 93.2 119 96.7 97 97.0 2.440 0.295
No 8 6.8 4 3.3 3 3.0
Doctor’s diagnosis of urinary incontinence Yes 19 0.9 27 1.7 266 4.2 71.951 <0.001
No 2149 99.1 1525 98.3 6004 95.8
Treatment of urinary incontinence Yes 9 47.4 18 66.7 125 47.0 3.812 0.419
No 10 52.6 9 33.3 141 53.0
Doctor’s diagnosis of anemia Yes 13 0.6 23 1.5 93 1.5 10.392 0.006
No 2155 99.4 1529 98.5 6177 98.5
Treatment of anemia Yes 10 76.9 22 95.7 76 81.7 3.279 0.175
No 3 23.1 1 4.3 17 18.3
Doctor’s diagnosis of ETC Yes 40 1.8 24 1.5 128 2.0 1.704 0.426
No 2128 98.2 1528 98.5 6142 98.0
Treatment of ETC Yes 36 90.0 24 100.0 122 95.3 2.670 0.273
No 4 10.0 0 0.0 6 4.7
Doctor’s diagnosis total number 1.37 1.24 1.78 1.50 2.02 1.50 356.311 <0.001
Prescription medication that currently
taking for more than 3 months		 1.31 1.20 1.78 1.74 1.94 1.55 315.923 <0.001
Open in a new tab

1 M: average, 2 SD: standard deviation, 3 X2: Chi-square test, 4 H: Kruskal-Wallis test, 5 N: frequency, p-value < 0.05.

3.3. Physical Function Status and Discomfort in Daily Life

The following were the outcomes of the physical function status and discomfort in daily living: For those who answered “yes” regarding the use of a vision aid, 1142 people were “current drivers”, 890 people were “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 3247 people had “no driver’s license”; there was a difference between the groups (p < 0.001). As for those who answered “yes” in relation to the use of hearing aids, 1676 people were “current drivers”, 199 people were ” past drivers but not current drivers”, and 747 people had “no driver’s license”; there was a difference between the groups (p < 0.001). Those who were “uncomfortable” in their daily lives as a result of bad vision were as follows: “current drivers” consisted of 560 people, “past drivers but not current drivers” consisted of 508 people, and “no driver’s license” consisted of 2165 people; there was a difference between groups (p < 0.001). For discomfort due to hearing in daily life, “current drivers” consisted of 327 people, “past drivers but not current drivers” consisted of 383 people, and “no driver’s license” consisted of 1534 people who were “uncomfortable”; there was a difference between the groups (p < 0.001). Regarding the difficulty in performing motions (such as bending, squatting, or kneeling), “current drivers” consisted of 608 people, “past drivers but not current drivers” consisted of 770 people, and “no driver’s license” consisted of 3506 people who stated that it was “slightly or very difficult”; there was a difference between the groups (p < 0.001). For difficulty in performing movements (such as reaching out for something higher than their head), “current drivers” consisted of 423 people, “past drivers but not current drivers” consisted of 616 people, and “no driver’s license” consisted of 2911 people who stated that it was “slightly or very difficult”; there was a difference between groups (p < 0.001) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Physical function and daily life discomfort.

Characteristics Driving X2 3/H 4 p-Value
Current Drivers Past But Not Current Drivers No Driver’s License
N 1 % 2 N/M % N/M %
Assisted with eyesight Yes 1142 52.7 890 57.3 3247 51.8 15.459 <0.001
No 1026 47.3 662 42.7 3023 48.2
Assisted with hearing Yes 167 7.7 199 12.8 747 11.9 34.099 <0.001
No 2001 92.3 1353 87.2 5523 88.1
Assisted with chewing Yes 530 24.4 558 36.0 2546 40.6 181.906 <0.001
No 1638 75.6 994 64.0 3724 59.4
Discomfort of eyesight Not uncomfortable 1602 74.1 1015 66.6 3981 64.8 68.161 <0.001
Uncomfortable 524 24.2 465 30.5 2039 33.2
Very uncomfortable 36 1.7 43 2.8 126 2.1
Discomfort of hearing Not uncomfortable 1835 84.9 1140 74.9 4612 75.0 97.336 <0.001
Uncomfortable 308 14.2 343 22.5 1400 22.8
Very uncomfortable 19 0.9 40 2.6 134 2.2
Discomfort of chewing Not uncomfortable 1611 74.5 934 61.3 3608 58.7 173.696 <0.001
Uncomfortable 501 23.2 522 34.3 2252 36.6
Very uncomfortable 50 2.3 67 4.4 286 4.7
Muscle strength when sitting in a chair or bed and then getting up 5 times Performed 2008 92.6 1126 72.6 4174 66.6 586.185 <0.001
Tried but failed to perform (5 times not successful) 82 3.8 302 19.5 1594 25.4
Inability to even attempt to perform (elderly people with a vortex, or other disabilities that make it impossible to stand up) 10 0.5 43 2.8 174 2.8
Want to do it now 68 3.1 81 5.2 328 5.2
Difficulty in performing movements such as jumping one lap (400 m) on the playground Not difficult at all 576 26.6 189 12.2 454 7.2 1193.227 <0.001
Slightly difficult 882 40.7 437 28.2 1371 21.9
Very difficult 508 23.4 580 37.4 2414 38.5
Cannot do it at all 163 7.5 304 19.6 1920 30.6
Do now 39 1.8 42 2.7 111 1.8
Difficulty performing movements such as walking one lap (400 m) on the playground Not difficult at all 1606 74.1 807 52.0 2493 39.8 826.431 <0.001
Slightly difficult 414 19.1 477 30.7 2107 33.6
Very difficult 124 5.7 187 12.0 1157 18.5
Cannot do it at all 16 0.7 72 4.6 469 7.5
Do now 8 0.4 9 0.6 44 0.7
Difficulty in climbing 10 steps without a break Not difficult at all 1465 67.6 639 41.2 2030 32.4 907.291 <0.001
Slightly difficult 550 25.4 567 36.5 2391 38.1
Very difficult 129 6.0 271 17.5 1415 22.6
Cannot do it at all 20 0.9 70 4.5 394 6.3
Do now 4 0.2 5 0.3 40 0.6
Difficulty performing movements such as bending, squatting, or kneeling Not difficult at all 1535 70.8 722 46.5 2449 39.1 682.021 <0.001
Slightly difficult 482 22.2 551 35.5 2410 38.4
Very difficult 126 5.8 219 14.1 1096 17.5
Cannot do it at all 22 1.0 58 3.7 293 4.7
Do now 3 0.1 2 0.1 22 0.4
Difficulty performing movements such as reaching out for something above the head Not difficult at all 1729 79.8 895 57.7 3139 50.1 590.074 <0.001
Slightly difficult 330 15.2 474 30.5 2162 34.5
Very difficult 93 4.3 142 9.1 749 11.9
Cannot do it at all 13 0.6 38 2.4 197 3.1
Do now 3 0.1 3 0.2 23 0.4
Difficulty in performing operations such as lifting or moving about 8 kg of rice Not difficult at all 1478 68.2 694 44.7 2097 33.4 855.233 <0.001
Slightly difficult 496 22.9 519 33.4 2316 36.9
Very difficult 166 7.7 254 16.4 1304 20.8
Cannot do it at all 25 1.2 79 5.1 521 8.3
Do now 3 0.1 6 0.4 32 0.5
Open in a new tab

1 N: frequency, 2 %: percentage, 3 X2: Chi-square test, 4 H: Kruskal-Wallis test, p-value < 0.05.

3.4. Depressive Symptom

As a result of examining the depressive symptoms, the score was 10.08 (2.21) for “current drivers”, 10.40 (2.20) for “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 10.34 (2.28) for “no driver’s license”, with a cut-off point of 8. The “current drivers” group exhibited a lower depression score than the “no driver’s license” (p < 0.001) group. Despite this, all groups were found to have high levels of depression.

3.5. Economic Activity

The results related to economic activity were as follows: In relation to current economic activity, 1432 people were from the “current drivers” group, 448 people from the “past drivers but not current drivers” group, and 1898 people from the “no driver’s license” group were “currently working”. There were 676 “current drivers”, 1041 “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 3116 having “no driver’s license” who had “previously worked but not currently working”. The “never worked” people who were “current drivers” were 60 people, “previously a driver but not currently” were 63 people, and 1256 people had “no driver’s license”; there was a difference between the groups (p < 0.001). As for the participants who would like to work in the future, there were 804 people who “didn’t want to work” who were “current drivers” and 1006 people who had “no driver’s license”; 4298 people indicated wanting to “continue their current work” of which 1135 people were “current drivers” and 334 people had “no driver’s license”; 1339 people wanted to “continue with current job”, of which 82 people were “current drivers”, 53 people were “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 130 people had “no driver’s license. There were 141 “current drivers”, 130 “past drivers but not current drivers”, and 379“having no driver’s license”; there was a difference between groups (p < 0.001) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Social and economic activity.

Characteristics Driving X2 3/H 4 p-Value
Current Drivers Past But Not Current Drivers No Driver’s License
N 1 % 2 N/M % N/M %
Current economic activity Currently working 1432 66.1 448 28.9 1898 30.3 1305.474 <0.001
Previously worked but not currently 676 31.2 1041 67.1 3116 49.7
Not working 60 2.8 63 4.1 1256 20.0
Current work Farmers and fisheries 353 24.7 77 17.2 482 25.4 854.529 <0.001
Cost facilities management 159 11.1 92 20.5 132 7.0
Cleaning 59 4.1 65 14.5 468 24.7
Production 83 5.8 27 6.0 69 3.6
Household care 21 1.5 3 0.7 82 4.3
Driving transport 160 11.2 8 1.8 8 0.4
Professions 69 4.8 8 1.8 20 1.1
Office 37 2.6 7 1.6 8 0.4
Cooking and food 148 10.3 33 7.4 242 12.8
Courier and delivery 20 1.4 3 0.7 4 0.2
Site management 46 3.2 16 3.6 22 1.2
Environmental landscaping 27 1.9 27 6.0 114 6.0
Construction machinery 135 9.4 23 5.1 28 1.5
Culture and arts 9 0.6 0 0.0 3 0.2
Maintaining public order 14 1.0 16 3.6 69 3.6
Waste paper collection 5 0.3 8 1.8 24 1.3
ETC 87 6.1 35 7.8 123 6.5
Work status Don’t want to work 804 37.2 1006 66.1 4298 69.9 867.564 <0.001
Continue with current job 1135 52.5 334 21.9 1339 21.8
Seeking different work 82 3.8 53 3.5 130 2.1
Do not work now, but want to work 141 6.5 130 8.5 379 6.2
Open in a new tab

1 N: frequency, 2 %: percentage, 3 X2: Chi-square test, 4 H: Kruskal-Wallis test, p-value < 0.05.

3.6. Recognition Function

The results reflecting age and educational level that affect cognitive impairment are as follows: Looking at overall cognitive impairment, the elderly who were in the “current drivers” group had less precognitive impairment than the “past drivers but not current drivers” and “no driver’s license” groups. However, in the driving group, there were participants with lower than the recognition function cut-off points of 30 in the age group of 80 years or older (Table 5).

Table 5.

Precognitive function (MMSE-K).

Characteristics Education Level
0–3 Years 4–6 Years 7–12 Years 13 Years or More
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Current drivers Age 65–69 30 (2) 30 (1) 27 (73) 27 (40) 27 (776) 27 (272) 28 (165) 29 (39)
70–74 30 (2) 25 (1) 26 (60) 25 (14) 26 (344) 27 (40) 29 (66) 28 (5)
75–79 27 (2) 24 (1) 25 (45) 26 (7) 27 (120) 26 (9) 26 (16) 29 (2)
80 over 22 (3) 16 (1) 23 (15) 23 (4) 27 (30) 6 (1) 28 (10) 30 (2)
Past but not current drivers 65–69 26 (1) 23 (1) 24 (42) 25 (16) 25 (185) 27 (126) 24 (14) 28 (15)
70–74 21 (5) 25 (1) 25 (71) 26 (15) 25 (249) 27 (62) 26 (32) 27 (4)
75–79 22 (11) 25 (4) 24 (117) 26 (20) 25 (211) 25 (19) 26 (29) 25 (6)
80 over 20 (29) 15 (4) 23 (96) 23 (9) 24 (114) 24 (11) 25 (31) 29 (2)
No driver’s license 65–69 21 (6) 23 (41) 26 (36) 25 (385) 24 (141) 26 (1097) 26 (10) 26 (37)
70–74 25 (9) 22 (132) 23 (94) 24 (602) 23 (147) 25 (513) 28 (8) 25 (16)
75–79 23 (14) 21 (256) 23 (113) 23 (616) 23 (106) 24 (241) 27 (9) 24 (14)
80 over 22 (72) 20 (514) 22 (180) 22 (627) 21 (91) 23 (129) 26 (9) 24 (5)
Open in a new tab

3.7. Current Drivers

The degree of difficulty in driving was as follows: 24 people found it to be very difficult; 238 people stated that it was somewhat difficult; 352 people stated that it was just so; 859 people stated that it was not difficult at all; and 689 people stated that it was not at all. The difficulties experienced while driving were “eyesight impairment” in 236 people, “hearing impairment” in 22 people, “decreased reaction speed in arms and legs” in 82 people, “decreased judgment” (understanding road conditions such as intersections) in 151 people, and “slow speed” in 123 people.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The data for this study were obtained from the health and welfare data portal of the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs to identify the physical and mental status of the elderly who are currently driving. A total of 9,990 people took part in the survey in 2020. Choi stated that elderly drivers experiencing difficulties adapting to changes in driving conditions are aware of the driving risks, including deterioration in sight and hearing [11]. It has been shown that many elderly drivers choose to drive despite the deterioration in their sight and hearing, which is a result of their natural aging and can cause serious accidents. Lee also stated that elderly drivers’ ability to adapt to driving situations is related to the risk of traffic accidents, which means that the physical health of the elderly is highly correlated with their driving performance [19].

Aging is natural, but the deterioration of vision inevitably increases the risk of accidents associated with driving; hence, elderly drivers must accurately recognize their mental and physical conditions. Health status is highly correlated with the safety perception of driving. If the elderly are rewarded for good health status, [5] they will drive more cautiously. Previous studies also reported that elderly drivers become distracted while driving owing to the increased auditory processing load, which increases the risk of driving accidents owing to increased driving speed variability [11,12]. It has been recognized that the driving risk increases when the elderly drive [11]. In addition, complications that can lead to accidents and, consequently, cause social problems are also important when psychotic or cognitive impairment occurs in elderly drivers [5,11]. In reality, it is impossible to unconditionally ban the elderly from driving, but in particular, the elderly who have vision and hearing impairments should receive driving assistance through orthoses and treatment.

It was reported that the elderly who currently drive had a better subjective health status than those who did not. Among the “current drivers”, seven people had severe disabilities (grades 1–3), 44 had moderate disabilities (grades 4–6), 32 had physical disabilities, 11 had hearing impairments, three had visual impairments, and two had respiratory problems. At the time of the data investigation, most of the current diseases had been cured, but there were differences between the groups in the treatment status of diabetes and chronic diseases such as back pain, sciatica, pulmonary tuberculosis, and tuberculosis. The number of chronic diseases increased, resulting in the elderly not driving. In addition, for 28.0% of the respondents, bending, squatting, and kneeling movements were difficult, and for 19.5%, reaching for something higher than their head was difficult. Depression symptoms decreased as they drove, and cognitive function was better in the driving group than in the other groups, but it was also lower than the cut-off point for those over the age of 80. Among the elderly who are currently drivers, 12.0% said that they experienced difficulties while driving in terms of decreased vision, hearing loss, decreased arm/leg reaction speed, decreased judgment (understanding of road conditions, such as signals and intersections), and decreased sense of speed. In a study by Choi, elderly drivers were found to take drugs for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia [11]. Also, regarding the economic activity results of elderly drivers, there is a significant difference between groups according to current drivers, drivers who have driven in the past, and those without a driver’s license. This means that driving and economic activities are significantly correlated, and drivers have a strong correlation with economic activity. In this study, diseases such as diabetes, lower back pain, and sciatica were significantly different from those in the other groups. These results suggest that elderly drivers are unaware of medical conditions that can negatively affect their driving. The findings of this study can facilitate the safety management of elderly drivers by better understanding their mental and physical status.

This study has some limitations. The results must be interpreted with caution, as the findings do not represent all elderly drivers in the Republic of Korea. Further, the findings do not reflect the actual driving situation. In addition, it was impossible to directly discuss the risk of driving due to neurological symptoms.

Acknowledgments

This study data was processed and used as raw data from the Health and Welfare Data Portal of the Korea Institute of Health and Social Affairs (https://data.kihasa.Re.kr/kihasa/) and was based on the data (National Statistics approval no. 117071). We accessed it on 20 June 2022.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.-H.J., E.-Y.K., C.O. and J.K.; data curation, S.-H.J., E.-Y.K. and W.-J.C.; formal analysis, S.-H.J., E.-Y.K., S.-J.L., H.-J.S. and J.K.; funding acquisition, J.K.; investigation, E.-Y.K., S.-J.L. and J.K.; methodology, S.-H.J. and E.-Y.K.; project administration, W.-J.C. and J.K.; resources, S.-H.J. and H.-J.S.; software, E.-Y.K., S.-J.L., W.-J.C. and J.K.; supervision, J.K.; validation, S.-H.J., E.-Y.K., W.-J.C., C.O. and H.-J.S.; visualization, E.-Y.K.; writing—original draft, S.-H.J., E.-Y.K. and J.K.; writing—review and editing, W.-J.C., C.O. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by a Korea University Grant, Basic Science Research Program, through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (NRF-2022R1I1A1A01071220), and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1A5A1018052).

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

  • 1.Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS), 2019. [(accessed on 5 October 2022)]. Available online: http://kosis.kr/statHtmlstatHtml/statHtml.do?or-Id=101&tblId=DT_1BPA002&checkFlag=N/
  • 2.Baldock M.R., McLean J. Older Drivers: Crash Involvement Rates and Causes. Centre for Automotive Safety Research; Adelaide, Australia: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gagliardi C., Marcellini F., Papa R., Giuli C., Mollenkopf H. Associations of personal and mobility resources with subjective well-being among older adults in Italy and Germany. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2010;50:42–47. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2009.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Park S.W., Park H.C., Yoo M.H., Lim S.I., Hwang E.J., Kim E.S., Choi K.I., Choi K.J., Lee D.J. Driving status, habits and safety of older drivers. J. Korean Acad. Rehabil. Med. 2010;34:570–576. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lee S.E. Factors affecting traffic accident anxiety of older drivers. (JNCIST) J. Next-Gener. Converg. Inf. Serv. Technol. 2019;8:263–272. doi: 10.29056/jncist.2019.09.04. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ahmed H.I., Mohamed E.E., Aly A.M. Effect of mobility on the quality of life among older adults in geriatric home at Makkah al-Mukarramah. Adv. Life Sci. Technol. 2014;17:39–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Traffic Accident Analysis System (TAAS) 2019. [(accessed on 5 October 2022)]. Available online: http://taas.koroad.or.kr/sta/acs/gus/selectOdsnDrverTfcacd.do?menuId=WEB_KMP_OVT_MVT_TAS_ODT/
  • 8.Donorfio L.K.M., D’Ambrosio L.A., Coughlin J.F., Mohyde M. To drive or not to drive, that isn’t the question—The meaning of self-regulation among older drivers. J. Safety Res. 2009;40:221–226. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2009.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kim D.H., Heo T.Y. Analysis on the auto accident risks of the old. Korean Soc. Transp. 2015;33:100–111. doi: 10.7470/jkst.2015.33.1.100. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Charlton J.L. Characteristics of older drivers who adopt self-regulatory driving behaviours. Transp Res. F. 2006;9:363–373. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2006.06.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Choi S.Y. Analyzing driving risk self-perception characteristics of elderly drivers. J. Converg. Inf. Technol. 2020;10:223–231. doi: 10.22156/CS4SMB.2020.10.07.223. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pachana N.A., Petriwskyj A.M. Assessment of insight and self-awareness in older drivers. Clin. Gerontol. 2006;30:23–38. doi: 10.1300/J018v30n01_03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Molnar L.J., Eby D.W., Kartje P.S., St Louis R.M.S. Increasing self-awareness among older drivers: The role of self-screening. J. Safety Res. 2010;41:367–373. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2010.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Donorfio L.K.M., Mohyde M., Coughlin J., D’Ambrosio L. A qualitative exploration of self-regulation behaviors among older drivers. J. Aging Soc. Policy. 2008;20:323–339. doi: 10.1080/08959420802050975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ross L.A., Clay O.J., Edwards J.D., Ball K.K., Wadley V.G., Vance D.E., Cissell G.M., Roenker D.L., Joyce J.J. Do older drivers at-risk for crashes modify their driving over time? J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2009;64:163–170. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbn034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Factor R., Mahalel D., Yair G. The social accident: A theoretical model and a research agenda for studying the influence of social and cultural characteristics on motor vehicle accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2007;39:914–921. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Choi S.Y., Lee J.S., Kim S.K., Cha T.H., Yoo D.H., Kim H. Developing a self-questionnaire SAFE-DR to evaluate driving ability of Korean elderly driver. Asia Life Sci. 2020;29:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Meuleners L.B., Harding A., Lee A.H., Legge M. Fragility and crash over-representation among older drivers in Western Australia. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2006;38:1006–1010. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sheikh J.I., Yesavage J.A. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clin. Gerontol. J. Aging Ment. Health. 1986;5:165–173. doi: 10.1300/J018v05n01_09. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Folstein M.F., Robins L.N., Helzer J.E. The Mini-Mental State Examination. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 1983;40:812. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790060110016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kwon Y.C. Korean version of mini-mental state examination (MMSE-K) J. Korean Neurol. Assoc. 1989;1:123–135. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kang Y., NA D.-L., Hahn S. A validity study on the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) in dementia patients. J. Korean Neurol. Assoc. 1997;15:300–308. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.LEE D.-Y., LEE K.-U., LEE J.-H., KIM K.-W., JHOO J.-H., YOUN J.-C., KIM S.-Y., WOO S.-I., WOO J.-I. A normative study of the mini-mental state examination in the Korean elderly. J. Korean Neuropsychiatr. Assoc. 2002;41:508–525. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Articles from Healthcare are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES