NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES OF CAREGIVERS TO PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA WHO HAVE LOST THEIR DRIVING PRIVILEGES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability to drive a motor vehicle for most older adults is associated with a sense of independence, well-being, quality of life and identity. For many older adults, driving cessation eventually becomes inevitable. This is especially the case for older adults with a diagnosis of dementia. Driving cessation has been shown to negatively impact individuals’ mobility and, consequently, quality of life. Informal caregivers (i.e., family caregivers) can mitigate the negative consequences associated with driving cessation in persons with dementia (PWD) by meeting their mobility needs and by offering emotional support. The purpose of this study was to examine the experience and needs of informal caregivers of PWD who had recently lost their driving privileges. Ten informal caregivers of PWD were recruited from a tertiary memory disorders clinic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed. Transcripts of interviews were thematically analyzed using a grounded theory approach. The major themes emerging from the experience of caregivers included being overwhelmed by responsibility, overwhelmed by the emotional response of their care recipient and feeling resentment towards their care recipient. Similarly, the major themes emerging from the needs of caregivers included having the need for mobility training, psychoeducation on how to best attend to the emotional needs of their care recipient and the need for coping strategies. These experiences and needs expressed by caregivers indicate that driving cessation of the care recipient is a difficult experience for caregivers and that a therapeutic intervention based on the reported needs may be beneficial.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".