↓ Skip to main content

Mandarin version of dementia and driving decision aid (DDDA): Development and stakeholder evaluation in Taiwan

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Older People Nursing, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

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.
Article details
Title
Mandarin version of dementia and driving decision aid (DDDA): Development and stakeholder evaluation in Taiwan
Published in
International Journal of Older People Nursing, February 2021
DOI 10.1111/opn.12370
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Dementia causes cognitive and memory difficulties which can reduce the driving safety of the individuals. The decision-making process for driving retirement is challenging, and yet limited guidance is available. This article reports the development of the Taiwanese version of dementia and driving decision aid (DDDA) and the evaluation from stakeholders through a dementia and driving education programme. A multi-method approach was adopted using a pre-test, post-test survey and focus group interviews. A total of 154 healthcare professionals, family caregivers and people with dementia participated education programme, and 12 experts attended the focus group discussion. The survey included demographics, knowledge, confidence, competence and awareness of using DDDA. Participants completed a survey prior and immediately after the education programme. We translated a 32-page interactive DDDA booklet from the original English version to Mandarin. The education programme consisted of three-hour dementia and driving education module delivered both face-to-face and online. The majority of participants described the booklet as balanced (91.7%) with the information presented in a 'good' or 'excellent' manner (93.4%). Most participants (85.3%) felt that DDDA helps them in making decisions about driving. Five themes were extracted from the focus group interview: (1) approach targeted to people with dementia, (2) specific content and additional information, (3) culturally appropriate modification, (4) having the right to drive and (5) booklet dissemination. The knowledge, confidence, competence and awareness of using the DDDA increased significantly (p < 0.001) after the education programmes. We anticipate that use of the DDDA booklet will raise awareness of this social and health issue among the general public and facilitate collaborations with clinicians, municipalities and related organisations in providing a decision-making resource material for those with people living with dementia and their families. This study was not a clinical trial and the focus of this study was development and evaluation of the DDDA booklet. As mentioned in the methods section, participants were invited to attend the education program and provided their thoughts on the DDDA booklet based on their satisfaction level. Moreover, the education program was a one-day, workshop type program. This study was neither "prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions" nor "to evaluate the effects on health outcomes", according to the definition of clinical trial by WHO. Therefore, we did not consider this study was a clinical trial. There is an urgent need for supporting people with dementia and their families to negotiate the complex decision-making involved in deciding to change their approach to driving. The DDDA booklet can fill an important gap in service delivery to people with dementia who are adjusting to life without driving.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

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.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 32 60%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 32 60%
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 24 November 2021.
All research outputs
#9,347,751
of 27,273,687 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Older People Nursing
#351
of 882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,328
of 462,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Older People Nursing
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,273,687 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 882 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 462,586 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.