MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406224689 · doi:10.1002/alz.091035

Exploring users' perspectives of the Driving and Dementia Roadmap

2024· article· en· W4406224689 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Naglie, Elaine Stasiulis, Mark Rapoport

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPsychologyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Since October, 2022 the Driving and Dementia Roadmap (DDR) ( www.drivinganddementia.ca ) – an online resource to support people with dementia (PWD), family/friend carers (FCs) and healthcare providers (HCPs) as they navigate the challenges of driving cessation – has been accessed by over 34,000 users. To understand the DDR’s impact we are conducting on‐going surveys to explore users’ perspectives of the DDR. Method As users exit the DDR, they are invited, via pop‐up message, to participate in an online survey about their experiences with the DDR, including their perceived new knowledge and confidence gained due to using the DDR and their satisfaction with it. Descriptive statistics were conducted via the REDCap platform. Result To date, 81 DDR users have participated in the survey (17 PWD, 33 FCs and 31 HCPs). Topics rated the highest as “new knowledge gained” included: for PWD, “recognizing unsafe driving” (17.6%) and “getting around without driving” (17.6%); for FCs, “recognizing unsafe driving” (59.4%) and “learning about licensing and reporting” (59.4%); and for HCPs, “providing support after driving cessation” (61.3%) and “having discussions and managing emotions” (45.2%). With regards to increases in confidence reported as “somewhat” to “much more confident”, the highest rated topics included: for PWD, “making the decision to stop driving” (47.1%) and “recognizing unsafe driving” (41.2%); for FCs, “making the decision to stop driving” (71.9%) and “initiating conversations about driving cessation” (68.8%); and for HCPs, “managing the emotional impact” (71.1%) and “having conversations about driving cessation” (67.7%). Satisfaction levels by participants across all DDR characteristics were rated as “satisfied” to “very satisfied” by at least 47% of PWD, 87% of FCs and 80% by HCPs, with “trustworthiness of the information” rated the highest by all three groups (PWD: 75.1%; FCs: 93.8%; HCPs: 87.1%). Conclusion Early results indicate that a majority of users were satisfied with the DDR and using the DDR led to gains in new knowledge and increased confidence in managing aspects of driving cessation for all 3 groups, but least so for PWD. The next step will involve in‐depth interviews with participants to better understand the user experience and the relatively lower ratings among PWD.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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