↓ Skip to main content

A randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of decision training on assessors’ ability to determine optimal fitness-to-drive recommendations for older or disabled drivers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of decision training on assessors’ ability to determine optimal fitness-to-drive recommendations for older or disabled drivers
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1131-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Priscilla Harries, Carolyn Unsworth, Hulya Gokalp, Miranda Davies, Christopher Tomlinson, Luke Harries

Abstract

Driving licensing jurisdictions require detailed assessments of fitness-to-drive from occupational therapy driver assessors (OTDAs). We developed decision training based on the recommendations of expert OTDAs, to enhance novices' capacity to make optimal fitness-to-drive decisions. The aim of this research was to determine effectiveness of training on novice occupational therapists' ability to make fitness-to-drive decisions. A double blind, parallel, randomised controlled trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of decision training on novices' fitness-to-drive recommendations. Both groups made recommendations on a series of 64 case scenarios with the intervention group receiving training after reviewing two thirds of the cases; the control group, at this same point, just received a message of encouragement to continue. Participants were occupational therapy students on UK and Australian pre-registration programmes who individually took part online, following the website instructions. The main outcome of training was the reduction in mean difference between novice and expert recommendations on the cases. Two hundred eighty-nine novices were randomised into intervention; 166 completed the trial (70 in intervention; 96 in control). No statistical differences in scores were found pre-training. Post training, the control group showed no significant change in recommendations compared to the experts (t(96) = -.69; p = .5), whereas the intervention group exhibited a significant change (t(69) = 6.89; p < 0.001). For the intervention group, the mean difference compared with the experts' recommendations reduced with 95% CI from -.13 to .09. Effect size calculated at the post-training demonstrated a moderate effect (d = .69, r = .32). Novices who received the decision training were able to change their recommendations whereas those who did not receive training did not. Those receiving training became more able to identify drivers who were not fit-to-drive, as measured against experts' decisions on the same cases. This research demonstrated that novice occupational therapists can be trained to make decisions more aligned to those of expert OTDAs. The decision training and cases have been launched as a free training resource at www.fitnesstodrive.com . This can be used by novice driver assessors to increase their skill to identify drivers who are, and are not fit-to-drive, potentially increasing international workforce capacity in this growing field of practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Psychology 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 23 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2019.
All research outputs
#13,227,345
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,608
of 3,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,617
of 446,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#35
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.