Barriers to Assessing Fitness to Drive in Dementia in Nova Scotia: Informing Strategies for Knowledge Translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Over half a million Canadians have a diagnosis of dementia, approximately 25-30% of whom continue to drive. Individuals with dementia have a risk of motor vehicle collision up to eight times that of drivers without dementia. In Nova Scotia, the responsibility of reporting unsafe drivers is discretionary, but national survey data indicate that many physicians do not feel comfortable assessing driving safety. We report on barriers to addressing driving safety as identified by Nova Scotian primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of surveys completed by 134 English-speaking, Nova Scotian PCPs (mean years of practice 17.9±11; 53% female; 58% urban). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and multivariate linear and logistic regression (controlling for sex, urban/rural, and years of practice). RESULTS: Most PCPs (96%) routinely address driving safety in dementia, but physicians at all levels of experience find these discussions uncomfortable and sometimes avoid them. PCPs experience multiple barriers to assessing driving in dementia and desire further education and resources. CONCLUSIONS: In Nova Scotia, driving assessment is considered part of routine care in dementia, but general lack of comfort in administering these assessments is a risk. To improve physician comfort further education and resources are required.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".