Identifying current driver rehabilitation practices for clients with physical impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Driving is an important occupation that influences a person's ability to access community resources and participate in meaningful activities. Occupational therapists and other clinicians who are trained as driver rehabilitation specialists provide interventions to improve function and independence in driving. The objective of this study was to examine consistency of adaptive driving equipment prescription and driver retraining recommendations for clients with physical impairment and identify factors that influence driver rehabilitation recommendations. Methods: Clinicians practicing in Canada and the United States were surveyed electronically. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results: Out of 36 respondents, the majority (97.2%) were occupational therapists. Completion of in-clinic (97.0%) and on-road (84.4%) evaluations were consistent among the majority of respondents, yet components comprising evaluations varied. Fewer respondents were in agreement in equipment recommendations for secondary controls. Respondents emphasized the importance of clinical reasoning skills when making equipment and intervention recommendations. Conclusion: Further development of clinical guidelines and advanced training in driver rehabilitation may be beneficial to facilitate clinical reasoning and improve consistency of practice.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".