A Randomized Trial of a Comprehensive Training Process to Enhance Safe Driving in Older Adults
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Canada, older adult driving exposure is increasing quite drastically. However, older adult \ndrivers have a higher motor vehicle collision fatality risk compared to younger age groups. Therefore, \nolder adult driver safety is an area requiring considerable attention. Using a randomized controlled trial \nstudy design, the present study investigated the effectiveness of a comprehensive training process to \nenhance safe driving in older adults. Based on their age and sex, participants (n=78), aged 65 years and \nabove, were block randomized to one of three driving training intervention groups: 1) in-class training \n(control); 2) in-class plus on-road training (with individualized feedback); and 3) in-class plus on-road \nplus simulator training (with individualized feedback). The main outcome measure was the number of \nunsafe-driving actions committed before and after receiving designated driving training interventions on a \nstandardized on-road driving evaluation, captured by video and GPS technology, and scored by a blinded, \nindependent rater. Driving knowledge and driving comfort data were also collected for all participants \nbefore and after receiving their designated interventions. Mean baseline total on-road driving scores were \nsimilar for intervention groups, averaging 129.78 (SD=29.87) for the control group, 128.48 (SD=20.15) \nfor the in-class plus on-road training group, and 127.73 (SD=24.24) for the in-class plus on-road plus \nsimulator training group. The control group achieved an average reduction of 7.18 (95% CI [0.11, 14.26]) \nunsafe-driving actions; the in-class plus on-road training group and the in-class plus on-road plus simulator-training group achieved an average reduction of 41.64 (95% CI [26.21, 53.29]) and 38.69 (95% \nCI [22.20, 52.16]) unsafe-driving actions, respectively, especially regarding vehicle control and \nobservation errors. Driving knowledge also significantly improved from 74.4% to 83.2% of questions \nanswered correctly before receiving the in-class training component to after receiving the in-class training \ncomponent; however, there were no significant differences between intervention groups in post- \nintervention driving comfort levels. The findings demonstrate that achieving considerable improvements \nin older adults? driving relies on on-road training, and that individualized feedback supplementation \nshould be the focus of more inquiry. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.
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.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 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 découle