MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401514324 · doi:10.2196/57402

Toward Safe and Confident Silver Drivers: Interview Study Investigating Older Adults’ Driving Practices

2024· article· en· W4401514324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sunyoung Kim, Phaneendra Sivangula

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PerceptionPsychologyPopulationSuccessful agingGerontologyApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As the aging population in the United States continues to increase rapidly, preserving the mobility and independence of older adults becomes increasingly critical for enabling aging in place successfully. While personal vehicular transport remains a popular choice among this demographic due to its provision of independence and control over their lives, age-related changes may heighten the risk of common driving errors and diminish driving abilities. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the driving practices of older adults and their efforts to maintain safe and confident driving habits. Specifically, we sought to identify the factors that positively and negatively influence older adults' driving performance and confidence, as well as the existing efforts put into sustaining their driving abilities. METHODS: We recruited 20 adults aged ≥65 years who remained active drivers during the recruitment from the greater New York area. Then, we conducted semistructured interviews with them to examine their perceptions, needs, and challenges regarding safe and confident driving. RESULTS: Our findings uncovered a notable disparity between older adults' self-perceived driving skills and the challenges they face, particularly caused by age-related limitations and health conditions such as vision and memory declines and medication routines. Drawing on these findings, we proposed strategies to bridge this gap and empower older adults to drive safely and confidently, including fostering a realistic understanding of their capabilities, encouraging open dialogue regarding their driving, encouraging regular assessments, and increasing awareness of available resources. CONCLUSIONS: This study uncovered a noticeable disparity between the perceived driving competence of older adults and the actual challenges they confront while driving. This divergence underscores a significant need for better support beyond the existing aid available to preserve older adults' driving skills. We hope that our recommendations will offer valuable insights for practitioners and scholars committed to enhancing the overall well-being and quality of life for older adults as they age in their homes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207