Can Automated Vehicles Be Useful to Persons Living With Dementia? The Perspectives of Care Partners of People Living With Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Driving cessation is a complex challenge with significant emotional and health implications for people with dementia, which also affects their family care partners. Automated vehicles (AVs) could potentially be used to delay driving cessation and its adverse consequences for people with dementia and their care partners. Yet, no study to date has investigated whether care partners consider AVs to be potentially useful for people with dementia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This mixed-methods study assessed the views of 20 former or current family care partners of people with dementia on AV use by people with dementia. Specifically, questionnaires and semistructured interviews were used to examine care partners' acceptance of AV use by people with dementia and their views about the potential usefulness of AVs for people with dementia. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that care partners identified possible benefits of AV use by people with dementia such as their anticipated higher social participation. However, care partners also voiced major concerns around AV use by people with dementia and reported significantly lower levels of trust in and perceived safety of AVs if used by the person with dementia in their care compared to themselves. Care partners' concerns about AV use by people with dementia included concerns around the driving of people with dementia that AVs are not designed to address; concerns that are specific to AVs but are not relevant to the nonautomated driving of people with dementia; and concerns that arise from existing challenges around the nonautomated driving of people with dementia but may be exacerbated by AV use. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings from this study can inform future designs of AVs that are more accessible and useful for people with dementia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".