MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401656767 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087137

Evaluation of the effectiveness of three different interventions on older driver safety over a 12-month period: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4401656767 on OpenAlexaff
Abigail Hansen, Ranmalee Eramudugolla, Kim M. Kiely, Kim Delbaere, Michel Bédard, Julie Brown, Linda Clare, Thomas Lung, Joanne M. Wood, Kaarin J. Anstey

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionCrashPoison controlOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionSuicide preventionRandomized controlled trialPopulationHuman factors and ergonomicsProtocol (science)Research ethicsEnvironmental healthNursingAlternative medicinePsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The growing population of older drivers presents challenges for road safety attributed to age-related declines and increased crash fatality rates. However, enabling older people to maintain their health and independence through continued safe driving is important. This study focuses on the urgent need for cost-effective interventions that reduce crash risk while supporting older drivers to remain driving safely for longer. Our study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of three behavioural interventions for older driver safety. These include an online road-rules refresher workshop, tailored feedback on driving performance and two tailored driving lessons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single-blind three-parallel group superiority randomised controlled trial will be conducted with 198 urban licensed drivers aged 65 years and older, allowing for 4% attrition. This sample size provides 80% power to detect a difference with an alpha of 0.05. Participants will be selected based on a standardised on-road test that identifies them as moderately unsafe drivers. Interventions, spanning a 3-month period, aim to improve driving safety. Their effectiveness will be assessed through a standardised on-road assessment of driving safety at 3 months (T1) and 12 months postintervention (T2). Additionally, monthly self-reported driving diaries will provide data on crashes and incidents.This trial has the potential to identify cost-effective approaches for improving safety for older drivers and contribute to evidence-based health policy, clinical practice and guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC190439, 22 August 2019). The results of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001515785.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.010
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0140.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.019

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207