Driving Poststroke: Problem Identification, Assessment Use, and Interventions Offered by Canadian Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Driving is a key factor in maintaining autonomy and participation in life. Occupational therapists (OTs) are expected to assess individuals who want to resume driving post stroke and to provide retraining where appropriate. Research from the 1980s and 1990s indicated that patients were, for the most part, not being assessed and retrained. However, little is known about current practice management. Thus, this study examined clinicians' management of driving-related issues when treating clients with stroke. METHODS: We performed a Canadawide telephone survey of 480 OTs providing stroke rehabilitation in both inpatient rehabilitation and community-based settings. Clinicians reported on problems they noted and assessments and interventions they would provide for a "typical patient" described in a vignette that matched their work setting. RESULTS: 20% and 34% of clinicians responding to the inpatient rehabilitation and community-based vignettes, respectively, identified return to driving as a problem. Clinician and work environment variables significantly associated (P < .01) with identifying driving as a potential problem included being male, involvement in university teaching, research conducted in setting, and hosting student placements. The use of driving-specific assessments was under 12%. Less than 6% of clinicians offered driving retraining, and their desired use of retraining was low. CONCLUSION: Few clinicians identified driving as a problem post stoke, raising concern that patients attempt to drive on their own or never resume driving because of a lack of attention to driving during their rehabilitation. Poststroke driver assessment and retraining is a critical component of poststroke community reintegration that requires greater awareness by clinicians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".