P3‐419: Strategies to Facilitate Decision‐Making about Driving Cessation for People with Dementia: Perspectives from Healthcare Professionals and Other Stakeholders
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In addition to legal responsibilities for reporting specific diagnoses to government authorities in some jurisdictions, healthcare professionals (HCPs) are often responsible for providing support for driving issues to persons with dementia and their family caregivers in areas such as mobility, social participation and emotional response. Evidence suggests that some HCPs are hesitant to discuss driving with their patients with dementia for a number of reasons, including possible damage to the clinician-patient relationship and lack of training. At the same time, there is a gap in existing research that explores in-depth the resources that are employed by HCPs to assist persons with dementia and caregivers make the transition to non-driving. To fill this gap, qualitative methodology was used to examine the strategies that HCPs use to help to facilitate decision-making about driving, as well as coping and adaptation following driving cessation for persons with dementia and their caregivers. Stakeholders from organizations that represent or provide services to people with dementia and their caregivers were included in the sample in order to broaden perspectives beyond the clinical environment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 HCPs and 6 other stakeholders. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and entered into NVivo (version 9) software program for analysis. We employed inductive analysis techniques to generate descriptive themes around facilitating driving cessation. The findings to date include four broad themes: 1) The need to promote access to programs, resources and services to enable continued mobility and social participation; 2) The need to integrate driving cessation resources and tools within broader support systems that address the psychosocial aspects of dementia; 3) Gaps in emotional and psychological supports; and 4) The need for a balance between standardized approaches that can be employed widely, with those that target distinctive individual and local contexts. This study indicates that there are gaps in support for persons with dementia and their family caregivers with respect to driving cessation. Findings emphasize the importance of addressing these gaps while providing practical support through educational resources and social and alternative transportation programs in order to facilitate coping with driving cessation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».