Each month, the open access team of the University of Groningen Library (UB) puts a recent open access article by UG authors in the spotlight. This publication is highlighted via social media and the library’s newsletter and website.

The article in the spotlight for the month of September 2024 is titled The effectiveness and efficacy of driving interventions with ADHD: a Dutch perspective, written by Roy Noordhuis, Anselm Fuermaier and Dick de Waard (all connected to the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences).

Abstract

The diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been identified as a factor associated with an increased risk of involvement in car crashes. As a result, individuals in the Netherlands who are diagnosed with ADHD are mandated to undergo a psychiatric evaluation before obtaining their driving licence, optionally complemented with a driving test. Recent research has, however, demonstrated that 96% of individuals pass this procedure and can drive unrestrictedly, suggesting that current regulations have a limited impact and that a different regulatory approach may be warranted. This paper addresses three such potential interventions, exploring the scientific basis of implementing mandatory behavioural training programmes, the mandatory installation of driver monitoring systems, and temporary driving restrictions. To initiate this exploration, an analysis is made of the body of literature pointing towards a subpar driving performance in those with ADHD, accompanied by a discussion of the underlying symptoms and behaviours contributing to these findings. Furthermore, between- and within-individual factors affecting ADHD driving performance are reviewed. This examination illuminates a consistent pattern of substandard driving performances among those with ADHD, whereby the period shortly post-licensure stands out as a focal point for regulatory approaches. Following these results, the three potential driving interventions are reviewed to discern their impact on road safety when implemented specifically for drivers with ADHD. Corresponding studies suggest that all these interventions hold promise in improving driving performances, but the analysis is limited by the scarcity of long-term, ADHD-specific research. The paper concludes by discussing the feasibility of these ADHD-specific driving interventions, weighing their potential benefits, e.g., reduced crash rates, along with their associated costs, such as potential stigma and hindrance in societal integration and participation. Additionally, avenues for future research in these domains are outlined.

We asked the authors a few questions about the article:

Your article reviews three potential regulation policies tailored specifically for ADHD drivers: mandatory behavioural training programmes, temporary driving restrictions and the mandatory installation of driver monitoring systems. Which approach do you think is most promising?

As often in science, there is no simple answer to this question. Any intervention must be balanced on the limits it imposes on the mobility of members of the targeted group and its potential positive effect on road safety. In order to improve safety, we personally believe that individually-oriented interventions would be the most likely to be successful. In this case, this would be a driver monitoring system, where individuals receive direct, personalized feedback on their driving behaviour. Actually, this would be a good idea for all drivers, not only drivers with ADHD. 

Roy, this article is based on your master’s thesis in Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences. What was it like to turn your thesis into an article, how did you experience the publication process? 

Pursuing publication required significant revisions, not only in terms of writing style - the original thesis was written as an essay, so a more formal approach was necessary- but also in expanding the content, as the essay was subject to a word limit. This transformation thus, at times, felt like writing an entirely new paper. However, through the feedback from my co-authors as well as the valuable suggestions from the reviewers, I believe we produced a comprehensive and valuable review.

In terms of the publication process, this was the first time I published an article as a first author, and while I anticipated the effort involved, it did indeed take a lot of work. In our case, our initial submission did not get accepted immediately, but we were invited to revise and resubmit. After intensive work, it was gratifying to see the second version being accepted swiftly. Overall, I thus had a rewarding experience.

The journal Traffic Safety Research (TSR) is a non-profit open access journal that asks for voluntary publication fees from authors. Why did you decide to publish in this journal? And what do you think of their financing model?

TSR is a relatively new journal. Starting journals have no impact factor, which may deter people from submitting their manuscripts there. For us the main motivation was: this journal is read by our peers, and that is what one wishes for, that the results reach our fellow researchers. Having a (high) impact factor is luckily something that is not required by our department, a wise stance in our view, as this also gives new journals a chance to grow. 

At present the universities in the Netherlands have a ‘deal’ with publishers about article processing charges (APCs). As a researcher you are inclined to go for a publisher where there is no APC charged to you. (Visible!) costs are always a factor. And for that reason many of our peers are more likely to submit to an Elsevier journal that is part of the deal, instead of e.g. to PLOS One. However, the voluntary contribution requested by this journal is very reasonable and,…. voluntary.

Dick, you regularly share your expertise through podcasts or as a commentator in different media. Why do you think it is important that researchers contribute to the public debate?

Traffic psychologists perform studies that are relevant for society, they deliver results that people can relate to. As a consequence, the media are interested in what we have studied. For me it is natural to share results with the public; research was funded by public resources, and therefore I think we have an obligation to inform the public. Side-effect is that it helps to develop skills in explaining results in a language that lay people understand.

Could you reflect on your experiences with open access and open science in general?

Overall our experience with open access journals is good. It is important that potential readers are not stopped by a paywall, that people who are not affiliated with universities or cannot afford to pay for access can read scientific work. We also have the impression that open access papers reach more people and are more often referred to in other papers, which reflects that a broader audience is served. Another aspect that we like about TSR is that the names of reviewers are published. This helps in fairness and openness of reviews, and with that, openness of the journal.

Useful links:

More information about traffic psychology at the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences. 

Diamond open access initiatives (for example journals or publication platforms) do not charge subscriptions fees, nor publication fees to authors. They are free to access/read and free to publish in. More information about diamond open access at the UG. 

Citation:

Noordhuis, R., Fuermaier, A., & de Waard, D. (2024). The effectiveness and efficacy of driving interventions with ADHD: a Dutch perspective. Traffic Safety Research, 6, e000049. https://doi.org/10.55329/llbl9209

If you would like us to highlight your open access publication here, please get in touch with us.