The Paradox of Dementia and Driving Cessation: “It’s a Hot Topic,” “Always on the Back Burner”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the well-recognized difficulty that persons with dementia and family carers experience in the decision making and transition to nondriving, there are few interventions and resources to support them. As part of our ongoing research to develop a driving cessation toolkit that addresses this gap, we sought to examine the context-specific factors relevant to its effective implementation in settings that support older adults with dementia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was used to explore the perspectives of Alzheimer Society (AS) staff in their work of supporting people with dementia and family carers within the context of driving cessation. Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 AS staff members in 4 Canadian provinces. Data were examined using interpretative thematic analysis. RESULTS: The study results revealed an overarching paradox that despite the importance of driving cessation in people with dementia, it continues to be largely avoided at the individual and system levels. This is explored via the themes of (a) paradox of importance and avoidance identified in AS settings; (b) lack of awareness and understanding about dementia and driving among people with dementia and family carers; (c) distress and avoidance rooted in ongoing system issues; and (d) moving driving cessation to the "front burner." DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Viewed through the emerging social health paradigm, which focuses on the social and emotional consequences of dementia, our results highlight the urgent need to mobilize our communities, medical education systems, and transportation authorities to finally resolve the dementia and driving cessation paradox.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".