Mental health checklists and screening tests for rampaging bus drivers

Checklists and psychological screening questionnaires for mental illness are effective, easy to use and widely available. Pune was shocked into considering the need for mental health screening of its bus drivers after one of them wilfully killed eight people and injured 32 others. He hijacked a bus at the depot and mowed down victims in broad daylight. Amidst the protests, and outrage the Pune administration has decided that all its bus driver undergo psychological testing.

We have already looked at screening of police personnel for mental health problems, and also screening of teenagers for alcohol and drug abuse. Here we specifically examine the feasibility of regularly screening the 8600 PMPL staff and Pune bus drivers for mental health problems.

Mental illness in bus drivers

• Mental health problems are higher for bus drivers who suffer from back pain, are dissatisfied with their jobs or undertake long-distance driving. This is more so for employees who have worked for >10 years. (Issever et al 2002)
• Aggressive bus drivers have more anxiety, hostility, and anger. They display competitiveness when driving aggressively, and display anger at slow drivers and traffic obstructions (Galovski 2002). Aggressive drivers with Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) endorse more assaultiveness and resentment. They display more impatience, hostility and have an angry temperament.
• Bus drivers have higher hospital admissions with diagnoses of mood reactions, paranoia and non-specific psychoses. (Ugesker 1989)

Ideal mental health screen

Easy to administer

it is to be conducted regularly without consuming excessive time

Culturally acceptable

anything stigmatising will be shunned

Sensitive

picks up potentially vulnerable persons

Specific

excludes those who do not have mental health problems

Easy to interpret

results should be available immediately

The aim of mental health screening is to identify individuals who require a more detailed examination. One counsellor will never be able to carry out any evaluation of 8600 staff.

Mental health checklists and screening instruments

There are already valid (test identifies persons mental illness) and reliable (results remain the same when administered by different testers and on re-testing) checklists for mental health screening. Two mental health screening instruments that satisfy many of the ideal criteria are the COOP/WONCA charts and the WHO-5 questionnaire. Both have high diagnostic accuracy for mental disorders. Specificity, sensitivity and positive predictive values range from 0.85 to 0.87 (Anything more than 0.7 is good).

COOP/WONCA

The COOP/WONCA measures six core aspects of functional status: physical fitness, feelings, daily activities, social activities, change in health and overall health through six charts. The charts have been successfully used in illiterate populations, and have guidelines for translation where required. The average time for completion is less than five minutes. One-time assessment with the COOP/WONCA Charts is a valid and feasible option for screening for mental disorders at the primary care level.

WHO-5

The WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5) is a set of 5 questions that can be used when six charts are too much.

A mental health check is most acceptable as part of the regular or annual ‘health check’. Those who score above the cut-off are taken up for detailed assessment by a psychiatrist or other mental health professional. No additional man-power is required. The process will not cost in crores. Our roads will be safer.

We need to use available checklists and screening tests for early detection of mental illness in Pune’s bus drivers.

References

1. Galovski T, Blanchard EB. Psychological characteristics of aggressive drivers with and without intermittent explosive disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2002 Oct;40(10):1157-68. 
2. Issever H, Onen L, Sabuncu HH, Altunkaynak O. Personality characteristics, psychological symptoms and anxiety levels of drivers in charge of urban transportation in Istanbul. Occup Med (Lond). 2002 Sep;52(6):297-303. 
3. Joao Mazzoncini de Azevedo-Marques, MD, PhD1 and Antonio Waldo Zuardi, MD, PhD. COOP/WONCA Charts as a Screen for Mental Disorders in Primary Care.  Annals of Family Medicine 9:359-365 (2011) doi: 10.1370/afm.1267
4. C. van Weel, C. König - Zahn, F.W.M.M. Touw - Otten, N.P. Van Duijn, B. Meyboom - de Jong. Measuring functional status with the COOP/WONCA charts: a manual. Northern Centre of Health Care Research 1990. ISBN 90 72156 33 1 
5. WHO. WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5) Accessed 17-Feb-2011 
6. Ugeskr Laeger. Psychiatric admissions among city bus drivers. A prospective study. Ugeskr Laeger. 1989 Jan 30;151(5):302-5. 

Drinking and driving

Alcohol and driving don’t mix. In a flashback to Alex’s drug influenced joyride in A Clockwork Orange, a Pune youth bumped into four people at different points on his late night drive through the city. When chased and caught he was found to be under the influence of alcohol.

In this post we take a look at the effects of alcohol on driving. We have already discussed some of the long term effects that necessitate imposing legal age limits for alcohol consumption in order to mitigate its neurotoxic effects on the developing brain.

30mg% is the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving. Limits are a safety requirement to counter the adverse effects of alcohol on driving ability. The 30mg% level is often panned as being too low. Most countries have settled at a 50mg% threshold, some at 20mg%, others (considered very liberal) at 80mg%. Lets take a look at the effects on driving at these various blood alcohol concentrations (CDC 2011).

---

BAC	Effect on driving
20mg%	Visual deficits (problems with tracking of a moving object), Decline in multitasking ability (talking to a passenger while driving)
50mg%	Reduced coordination, difficulty steering, increased reaction time for braking by more than a second (Siliquini 2011)
80mg%	Problems with concentration, short term memory loss, reduced information processing capacity, impaired perception

---

How long after drinking alcohol is it safe to drive?
You need to wait at least as many hours as the ‘chota pegs’ (1oz or 30ml) you consumed. Alcohol is digested by the liver. The liver has a fixed capacity to metabolise about 8gms of alcohol in an hour. This is the amount of alcohol in 30ml of whisky, vodka, rum or gin. The equivalent dose is 250ml of beer or a glass (150ml) of wine. Each of these is considered as a ‘unit’ of alcohol.  However, consuming any quantity of alcohol within 6 hours prior to driving is associated with a doubling of the risk for a road traffic accident (Di Bartolomeo 2009). This effect of alcohol is present even at intake of 1-2 units which works out to a BAC of approximately 50mg%.

Blood alcohol levels as low as 20mg% impair driving ability under test conditions in a simulator. At 50mg% the impairments more than double the risk of an accident. The present 30mg% level may be legal but it remains impairing. Better to have a ‘designated driver’ - the person who does not drink for that particular evening. In case you want to we have already studied how to refuse alcohol.

DONT drink alcohol and drive

References

1. Anthony Burgess. A Clockwork Orange. 1962. (Various publishers including Penguin)
2. CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pdf/BAC-a.pdf. Accessed 15-Dec-2011.
3. Stefano Di Bartolomeo Francesca Valent, Rodolfo Sbrojavacca, Riccardo Marchetti and Fabio Barbone. A case-crossover study of alcohol consumption, meals and the risk of road traffic crashes. BMC Public Health 2009, 9:316 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-316
4. Roberta Siliquini, Fabrizio Bert, Francisco Alonso, Paola Berchialla, Alessandra Colombo, Axel Druart, Marcin Kedzia, Valeria Siliquini, Daniel Vankov, Anita Villerusa, Lamberto Manzoli and TEN-D Group (TEN-D by Night Group). Correlation between driving-related skill and alcohol use in young-adults from six European countries: the TEN-D by Night Project. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:526 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-526.

Brain effects of cellular phone use

Mobile phone induced EEG changes

Cellular phones affect the brain to cause injury and death through inattention and reaction time delays. Cellular phone radiations also induce abnormal changes in brainwaves. Here we are not concerned with the potential for death due to the cancer generating properties of GSM radiation. We are concerned with the direct and immediate adverse effects of cellular phone conversations.

Cellphones continue to kill their users in Pune. At least two people died crossing the Hadapsar railway tracks while engrossed in conversation. One of them was oblivious to shouting onlookers warning him of the oncoming train. Another cell-bewitched user fell off his eighth-floor balcony while conversing. And of course cellphone use while driving continues to kill despite the ban. All this is besides the cancer risk that the WHO (2011) is unable to disregard.

How distracting is a cellphone conversation?

Any extraneous demand on attention will distract from performance on an ongoing task. If the task itself is critical, as in driving, distractions can be lethal. Even hands-free cellphone conversations while driving cause attention lapses and slow down reaction time (McCartt 2006). These effects are seen in drivers across gender and age groups. The surest way to verify that a crash occurred during mobile phone use is to check billing records. Using this method crashes leading to personal or property damage are found to be four times more common during mobile phone use. When there is a higher mental load in the mobile phone conversation problems with attention and reaction time are magnified (Lin 2006).

The stream of media reported mobile phone related deaths during the performance of everyday tasks highlights the much neglected aspect of non-driving related mobile phone injuries. Pedestrians conversing on a mobile phone cross the road more slowly, are less likely to look for traffic, and take more risks in the face of oncoming traffic (Neider 2010). Pedestrians are less likely to cross a road successfully while using a mobile phone than while listening to music on an iPod. These effects are more pronounced in adolescents.

The risk of injury is related to the need to shift the focus attention from the task on hand to the conversation. Conversing on a mobile phone takes up a significant amount of mental processing ability. Mobile phone conversations increase reaction times and reduce accuracy on task performance. These impairments increase with increasing complexity of the task being interrupted. One can only imagine the effect of a mobile phone interruption on the outcome of an ongoing medical procedure.

Do cellular phone generated electromagnetic waves interfere with brainwaves?

Intriguingly, GSM microwave radiation interacts with and distorts brainwaves. This effect can be directly measured and recorded on an electro-encephalogram (EEG). Electromagnetic fields emitted by cellular phones cause a slowing of brain waves (delta waves) that is not seen in healthy adults during normal wakefulness. These changes persist for up to ten of minutes after the mobile phone is switched off. Children are more vulnerable to these effects as microwave absorption is greatest in an object the size of a child’s head. This radiation also penetrates the thinner skull of an infant with greater ease (Kramarenko 2003).

Brainwaves normally discharge asynchronously when attention is drawn to an event in the environment. This event related de-synchronisation is altered by mobile phone electromagnetic fields. This affects tasks involving memory, especially in children (Krause 2000, 2006). Cellphone radiofrequency waves have a dose dependent effect on tasks attention, concentration and short term memory. Reaction speed decelerates with increasing GSM field intensity. These effects are more pronounced when the responding hand and side of radiation exposure are taken into account (Luria 2009).

These dose dependent radiation effects are also seen when cellular phone use also alters brainwave patterns (spindle activity) during slow-wave sleep. These effects are long lasting, and indicate a non-thermal effect. The thalamus, a part of the brain that processes sensation, is responsible for generating sleep spindle activity and may be especially susceptible to cellphone radiation (Regel 2007).

Walk and talk is a bad idea

References

1. Robert Baan, Yann Grosse, Béatrice Lauby-Secretan, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Véronique Bouvard, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Farhad Islami, Laurent Galichet, Kurt Straif, on behalf of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology, Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages 624 - 626, July 2011 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4
2. Kemker BE, Stierwalt JA, LaPointe LL, Heald GR. Effects of a cell phone conversation on cognitive processing performances. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009 Oct;20(9):582-8.
3. Kramarenko AV, Tan U. Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: A brain mapping study. Intern. J. Neuroscience, 113:1007–1019, 2003 DOI: 10.1080/00207450390220330
4. Krause CM, Sillanmäki L, Koivisto M, Häggqvist A, Saarela C, Revonsuo A, Laine M, Hämäläinen H.  Effects of electromagnetic fields emitted by cellular phones on the electroencephalogram during a visual working memory task. Int J Radiat Biol. 2000 Dec;76(12):1659-67.
5. Krause CM, Björnberg CH, Pesonen M, Hulten A, Liesivuori T, Koivisto M, Revonsuo A, Laine M, Hämäläinen H. Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task. Int J Radiat Biol. 2006 Jun;82(6):443-50.
6. Lin CJ, Chen HJ. Verbal and cognitive distractors in driving performance while using hands-free phones. Percept Mot Skills. 2006 Dec;103(3):803-10.
7. Luria R, Eliyahu I, Hareuveny R, Margaliot M, Meiran N. Cognitive effects of radiation emitted by cellular phones: the influence of exposure side and time. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Apr;30(3):198-204.
8. McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Bratiman KA. Cell phones and driving: review of research. Traffic Inj Prev. 2006 Jun;7(2):89-106.
9. Mark B. Neider, Jason S. McCarley, James A. Crowell, Henry Kaczmarski, Arthur F. Kramer. Pedestrians, vehicles, and cell phones. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 589–594
10. Regel SJ, Tinguely G, Schuderer J, Adam M, Kuster N, Landolt HP, Achermann P. Pulsed radio-frequency electromagnetic fields: dose-dependent effects on sleep, the sleep EEG and cognitive performance. J Sleep Res. 2007 Sep;16(3):253-8.