Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41366500›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Engaging patients with dementia, caregivers, and clinicians to study decisions about driving.

Kellia J Hansmann, Alexis Madson, Darona Woods, Mia Croyle, Kat Phelps

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kellia J HansmannDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. kellia.hansmann@fammed.wisc.edu.
Alexis MadsonDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Darona WoodsUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Mia CroyleMetaStar, Inc, Madison, WI, USA.
Kat PhelpsUniversity of Wisconsin School of Nursing, Madison, WI, USA.

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
Expanding the CAARN to accelerate research on multiple chronic conditions with rural and African-American communities and health-care providersR33AG061699 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Dorothy Farrar Edwards, Hongrui Jiang · 2019 to 2026
$5.1M
NCATS NIH HHS 1UL1TR002373NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373NIA NIH HHS R33 AG061699Wisconsin Partnership Program WPP 5129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile family and clinicians can help older drivers plan for the transition to non-driving, conversations about driving are logistically and emotionally complex. For people with dementia, delaying these conversations can mean they are no longer able to participate in their own decision-making. Our objective was to recruit and sustain two advisory boards of (1) community members and (2) clinicians to engage them in co-designing the approach for a feasibility study to investigate a clinical care pathway that supports earlier care planning discussions about driving for patients with dementia.

methodsWe partnered with the University of Wisconsin Community Academic Aging Research Network (CAARN) to recruit two advisory boards. The community board included Black older adults living in the greater Milwaukee, WI who care for a person with dementia (n = 5) or have dementia (n = 1). The clinical board included clinicians (i.e., MDs, APPs, RNs) with expertise in dementia care across Wisconsin (n = 6). We facilitated four meetings with each board focused on key study activities (i.e., refining research priorities, recruiting participants, meaningful outcomes, sharing results). We presented summaries at subsequent meetings to facilitate convergence between boards.

resultsWe engaged the advisory boards to refine our research priorities, recruitment strategy, meaningful outcomes and, ultimately, our plans to share our findings. The advisory boards’ framing of barriers to communication and care planning aligned with existing models (i.e., transtheoretical, social ecological), informing the focus and scope of our intervention co-design approach. Boards also identified key recruitment considerations related to fostering trust, cultural congruence, and resources for clinicians to engage in study recruitment.

conclusionsPartnering with community and clinical representatives to co-design a clinical care pathway has refined our approach to supporting people with dementia and their caregivers during transitions to non-driving. Insights gained from these advisory boards will increase the applicability of our findings to patients in diverse primary care practice settings. This work represents the early stages of developing relationships with advisory board members and will necessarily require ongoing effort to identify and respond to needs and priorities posed by advisory board members to ensure that our co-design activities are more than confirmatory steps.

Identifiers

PMID41366500
PMCPMC12802126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.