Poster Presentation Australian and New Zealand Stroke Organisation Conference 2025

Factors that influence return to driving for people with aphasia: Recommendations from lived experience. (#116)

Helen E Wallace 1 2 , Hannah L Gullo 3 4 , David A Copland 1 2 , Sarah J Wallace 1 2
  1. Queensland Aphasia Research Centre, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  2. Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service (STARS), Education and Research Alliance, The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  3. Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  4. Allied Health Research Collaborative, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Background/Aims: Return to driving is a recognised research priority for people with aphasia, caregivers and clinicians (Franklin et al., 2018). Aphasia has been identified as the strongest predictor of unfavourable outcomes in multi-professional fitness to drive assessment post-stroke (Gasne et al., 2024), and people with aphasia face unique challenges in return to driving (Wallace et al., 2024). This study aimed to identify factors influencing return to driving for people with aphasia post-stroke.

Methods: A qualitative descriptive study using online semi-structured interviews and journey mapping to identify “touch points” (moments shaping experience) relating to return to driving for people with aphasia. Transcripts were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.

Results: Fifteen people with aphasia in Australia (67% male; <65 years 73%) participated in interviews (duration 75-150 minutes). Five themes were identified: (1) Communication demands (e.g., self-advocacy, sourcing information and services, during assessments); (2) Inadequate communication (e.g., regarding driving cessation, next steps, decision-making, poor aphasia awareness); (3) Accommodating communication needs (e.g., communication skills and supports, consistency, carrying the load); (4) Dependence (to instigate and manage return to driving, for transport); (5) Importance of driving (e.g., independence, freedom, identity).

Conclusion: People with aphasia describe the patient journey to return to driving as a communication-intensive process. Communication barriers were identified across micro (individual interactions), meso (team and organisational communication) and macro (systemic and policy-related) levels (Scholl et al., 2014). A multifaceted and muti-sectorial response is required, addressing concerns across the care pathway, to allow people with aphasia every opportunity to return to driving.  

 

  1. Franklin, S., Harhen, D., Hayes, M., Demos Mc Manus, S., & Pollock, A. (2018). Top 10 research priorities relating to aphasia following stroke. Aphasiology, 32(11), 1388-1395. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2017.1417539
  2. Gasne, C., Ranchet, M., Evennou, M., Delebecque, M.-C., Hoang, I., Coignard, P., & Paire-Ficout, L. (2024). Fitness-to-drive recommendations in post-stroke patients: a retrospective study. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 33(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2024.107781
  3. Scholl, I., Zill, J. M., Härter, M., & Dirmaier, J. (2014). An Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness – A Systematic Review and Concept Analysis. PloS One, 9(9), e107828. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107828
  4. Wallace, H. E., Gullo, H. L., Copland, D. A., Rotherham, A., & Wallace, S. J. (2024). Does aphasia impact on return to driving after stroke? A scoping review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 46(25), 5977-6000. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2024.2317989