ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
A Collaborative Occupational Therapy-Instructor Model for Driving Evaluation of Persons with Disabilities.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Driving enables participation and independence for persons with disabilities; however, Korea lacks standardized driver rehabilitation guidelines and clearly defined occupational therapy roles. Current evaluations at the National Rehabilitation Center (NRC) rely heavily on instructors' experiential judgment, resulting in inconsistent fitness-to-drive decisions. This study developed and field-tested a comprehensive driving evaluation (CDE) tailored to the Korean service context, integrating structured off-road functional assessment with on-road driving evaluation through a collaborative occupational therapist-driving instructor model. (2) Methods: The off-road assessment was refined through a literature review, an analysis of the ICF Core Set for driving rehabilitation, expert surveys, and a workshop with 10 occupational therapists. The on-road assessment was adapted from international tools and validated by NRC driving instructors and an expert committee. The CDE was field-tested with 30 persons with physical disabilities, cerebral palsy, or auditory disabilities enrolled in the NRC Driving Education Program. Eligibility for independent driving was classified as "eligible" or "doubtful." (3) Results: The CDE was feasible within existing workflows. Off-road deficits predicted on-road difficulties, and cases with discordant judgments benefited from combined assessment. (4) Conclusions: The CDE offers a structured alternative to experience-based evaluations and supports interprofessional collaboration, providing foundational evidence for standardized driver rehabilitation in Korea.
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.