MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380893797 · doi:10.1002/alz.063144

Implementing and evaluating the driving and dementia roadmap (DDR) during the COVID pandemic

2023· article· en· W4380893797 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gary Naglie, Elaine Stasiulis, Harvir Sandhu, Christina E. Gallucci, Mark Rapoport

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPandemicThematic analysisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicinePsychologyIsolation (microbiology)Psychological interventionNursingQualitative researchDiseaseSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background To address the gap in evidence‐based interventions and resources to support people living with dementia (PWD) and family/friend carers (FCs) through the challenging process of driving cessation, we developed a web‐based educational resource called the Driving and Dementia Roadmap (DDR). An implementation evaluation, which took place during the COVID pandemic, was conducted to explore the delivery, acceptability, adaptability, preliminary benefits and limitations of the DDR. Method The DDR was delivered to Alzheimer Society (AS) clients by staff from six organizations in four Canadian provinces from December 2020 to September 2021. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 19 AS staff, eight PWD and 13 FCs. In addition to questions about their experiences of delivering and using the DDR, participants were asked about the impact of COVID on using the DDR. Data were examined using a thematic analysis approach. Result AS staff reported that client concerns about driving cessation and the need for the DDR were less than anticipated due to COVID. They attributed this to other pressing issues such as the need to stay safe from COVID, a lack of access to services and activities, caregiver burnout and PWD’s isolation. FCs and PWD also indicated that driving was not an immediate concern because they were driving less in the pandemic. However, AS staff expressed apprehensions about increased driving risk in the aftermath of COVID due to reports of PWD’s profound cognitive decline and lack of driving experience during the pandemic. Conclusion Although COVID’s impact on driving cessation initially lessened PWD’s and FCs’ urgency in attending to this issue, the longer‐term implications of neglecting this issue may be considerable for PWD and FC. The need for resources, such as the DDR, to support PWD and FCs in the decision‐making and transition to non‐driving will be particularly critical post‐COVID.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207