ArticleFamily medicine and community health2020
Physicians' views on the usefulness of practical tools for assessing the driving ability of older drivers: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Family medicine and community health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medications and traffic accidents involving older drivers: do Spanish primary healthcare physicians know enough?BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Attitudes, Beliefs, and Current Practices Carried Out by Family Physicians in Spain Regarding the Prevention of Road Injuries in Older Adults: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2023Article
- GPs' awareness of car driving among oldest patients: exploratory results from a primary care cohort.BJGP open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to explore Swiss physicians' views on the usefulness of a self-administered questionnaire completed by older drivers before the consultation and a reference guide summarising current Swiss guidelines on the fitness-to-drive assessment of older drivers. We also aimed to assess the frequency with which physicians used the information sources provided by the Swiss traffic medicine website.
designQuestionnaire-based cross-sectional study.
settingThe study was conducted in four cantons of Western Switzerland (Geneva, Vaud, Neuchâtel and Jura).
participantsAll physicians certified to carry out fitness-to-drive assessments in the canton of Geneva (medical assessors; n=69) and a random sample of 500 general practitioners practising in the cantons of Vaud, Neuchâtel and Jura were invited to participate. They were asked to report their estimated average number of fitness-to-drive assessments per week and to rate on a 5-point Likert scale the perceived usefulness of the preconsultation patient questionnaire and reference guide, and the frequency of use of the information sources provided by the traffic medicine website. We computed the proportion of physicians who found the assessment tools very/somewhat useful and the proportion of physicians who always/often used the traffic medicine website. We compared the responses according to medical specialty (medical assessors vs general practitioners) using design-based
results268 physicians (47%) agreed to participate in the study. Their median number of assessments was 2 per week (IQR 2). Overall, the majority of physicians found the questionnaire (75%) and reference guide (89%) very/somewhat useful. Only 17% of the sample always/often used the traffic medicine website. There were no statistically significant associations in multivariable analysis between the medical specialty and the perceived usefulness of the questionnaire and reference guide and the frequency of use of the traffic medicine website.
conclusionMany physicians find the preconsultation patient questionnaire and reference guide useful to guide them for assessing the driving ability of older drivers, but only a minority regularly use the information sources provided by the traffic medicine website. Future studies should explore the reasons why many physicians do not use these available sources of information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.