UNDERSTANDING THE USE OF COMPENSATORY STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE OLDER DRIVERS’ MOBILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Use of compensatory strategies, i.e., means used to adjust for diminished abilities, can optimize the community mobility of older drivers. However, although several investigations have been carried out on compensatory strategies, facilitators and barriers to the use of these strategies are mostly unknown. This study aimed to explore facilitators, barriers and needs for the use of adaptive driving strategies which can optimize the community mobility of older drivers. Method: An exploratory qualitative clinical research design was conducted with 11 older drivers, 7 relatives and 14 driving professionals. Results: Facilitators for the use of adaptive driving strategies were: being a woman; perceiving dangers; recognizing the usefulness of strategies and abilities as diminished; having disabilities or discomfort when driving; experiencing complex driving situations; receiving help of relatives and services of professionals; and having other transportation options. Barriers were: not knowing strategies; being proud; lack of self-criticism; unwillingness of relatives and physicians to intervene; having costs to the use of adaptive strategies; recognizing driving as important; perceiving the complexity of using other transportation options; and lack of proximity to facilities and services. To foster the use of adaptive strategies, TV, radio, newspapers and information sessions need increasing older drivers’ awareness about the age-related changes, the community resources, and the strategies themselves, including their importance in safe driving. Furthermore, to support older drivers in changing their driving habits and using adaptive strategies, results demonstrated that it is important to involve their relatives and professionals. Conclusion: While promoting safe driving and the prevention of collisions and injuries on the road, knowledge about facilitators, barriers and needs for the use of adaptive driving strategies could ultimately allow seniors to optimize their community mobility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".