Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Implementation and evaluation of a driving cessation intervention to improve community mobility and wellbeing outcomes for people living with dementia: study protocol of the 'CarFreeMe' for people with dementia program
Scott T, Liddle J, Mitchell G, Beattie E, Pachana N.. BMC geriatrics, 2019-03-04
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Caregiving strain will be collected from care partner/family member only. A process evaluation of the intervention will also be undertaken. Discussion There is an urgent need for therapeutic approaches to supporting people living with dementia and their families to negotiate the complex decision making involved in deciding to change their approach to driving. The driving cessation intervention may fill an important gap in service delivery to people living with dementia who are adjusting to life without driving. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000388213 , 15 March 2018.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Scott, T., Liddle, J., Mitchell, G., Beattie, E., & Pachana, N. (2019). Implementation and evaluation of a driving cessation intervention to improve community mobility and wellbeing outcomes for people living with dementia: study protocol of the 'CarFreeMe' for people with dementia program. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1074-6
Vancouver
Scott T, Liddle J, Mitchell G, Beattie E, Pachana N. Implementation and evaluation of a driving cessation intervention to improve community mobility and wellbeing outcomes for people living with dementia: study protocol of the 'CarFreeMe' for people with dementia program. BMC geriatrics. 2019. doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1074-6. PMID: 30832581.
BibTeX
@article{scott2019-30832581,
author = {Scott, T. and Liddle, J. and Mitchell, G. and Beattie, E. and Pachana, N.},
title = {{Implementation and evaluation of a driving cessation intervention to improve community mobility and wellbeing outcomes for people living with dementia: study protocol of the 'CarFreeMe' for people with dementia program}},
journal = {BMC geriatrics},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1186/s12877-019-1074-6},
pmid = {30832581},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1074-6}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Caregiving strain will be collected from care partner/family member only.
- A process evaluation of the intervention will also be undertaken.
- Discussion There is an urgent need for therapeutic approaches to supporting people living with dementia and their families to negotiate the complex decision making involved in deciding to change their approach to driving.
- The driving cessation intervention may fill an important gap in service delivery to people living with dementia who are adjusting to life without driving.
- Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000388213 , 15 March 2018.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 69/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC geriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30832581) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100. |
| Total | 69 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “program”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “program”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.