Occupational Therapists’ Capacity-Building Needs Related to Older Driver Screening, Assessment, and Intervention: A Canadawide Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older driver safety is a growing concern. We identified capacity-building needs of occupational therapists related to older driver screening, assessment, and intervention. METHOD: A Canadawide survey was undertaken involving 133 occupational therapists working with an older clientele. A standardized questionnaire elicited information regarding (1) actual practices related to older driver screening, assessment, and intervention; (2) perceived competence; and (3) need for continuing education. RESULTS: Occupational therapists were twice as likely to use screening tools rather than in-depth assessments (n = 79 vs. n = 37). Only 25 occupational therapists offered on-road assessment, and even fewer offered retraining (n = 11). Occupational therapists more often felt very competent in domains related to screening as opposed to assessment, and most were interested in continuing education. CONCLUSION: Driving services offered were primarily related to screening compared with assessment or intervention. Occupational therapists would benefit from driving-related professional training aimed at enhancing professional capacity in this arena.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".