Not If, But When: Impact of a Driving and Dementia Awareness and Education Campaign for Primary Care Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian physicians are responsible for assessing medical fitness to drive; however, national data indicate that physicians lack confidence in performing such assessments and face numerous barriers to addressing driving in patients with dementia. We report on the impact of a provincial Web-based resource (www.notifbutwhen.ca) regarding driving cessation in dementia aimed towards primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS: A pre/post cross-sectional survey (n = 134 baseline and n = 113 follow-up) of English-speaking, Nova Scotian PCPs. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, Pearson correlation, and multivariable logistic regression (controlling for sex, years of practice, and practice type) are reported. RESULTS: Most PCPs consider discussions regarding driving cessation to be routine part of dementia care; however, report multiple barriers to such discussions. Although the Web-based resource and awareness campaign were not associated with improvement in physician comfort in assessing driving risk in dementia, after completion of the campaign, fewer PCPs reported avoiding the topic of driving. Additionally, family resistance and lack of resources were less often reported as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of confidence, Nova Scotian PCPs routinely discuss driving cessation, and perform driving assessments for individuals with dementia. The Web-based resource and awareness campaign have shown moderate effectiveness in addressing specific barriers to assessment (e.g., caregiver resistance, lack of resources). Future efforts will address additional barriers, such as lack of comfort in decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".