Relationship of Decisional Conflict About Driving Habits Between Older Adult Drivers and Their Family Members and Close Friends.

This study examines the relationship of decisional conflict about driving habits between older adult drivers (≥70 years old) and their family members and close friends. This secondary analysis utilizes data originating from a multi-site randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of a driving decision aid (DDA) intervention. Decisional conflict about stopping or changing driving habits for drivers was measured with the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Dyadic associations between drivers' and study partners' (SPs') DCS scores were analyzed using an actor-partner interdependence model. Among 228 driver-SP dyads, Dyadic DCS was correlated at baseline (r = .18, p < .01), and pre-intervention DCS was associated with post-intervention DCS (p < .001 for SPs [ß = .73] and drivers [ß = .73]). Drivers' baseline DCS and SPs' post-intervention DCS were slighly correlated (ß = .10; p = .036). Higher decisional conflict about driving among older drivers is frequently shared by their SPs. Shared decisional conflict may persist beyond intervening to support decision-making about driving cessation.

A Web-Based Decision Aid for Caregivers of Persons With Dementia With Firearm Access (Safe at Home Study): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Firearm safety among individuals with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) is an underdiscussed and underresearched concern in the United States, especially given the growing population of community-dwelling adults with ADRD. The "Safety in Dementia" (SiD) web-based decision aid was developed to support caregivers in addressing firearm access; the efficacy of SiD is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Through the SiD decision aid, the Safe at Home (S@H) study aims to support caregivers in making decisions about home safety that align with their goals and values, and behaviors regarding firearm access for persons with ADRD and firearm access. METHODS: The S@H study is a 2-armed randomized controlled trial to test the effect of the SiD decision aid on caregivers of community-dwelling adults with ADRD who have firearm access. S@H aims to recruit 500 ADRD caregivers (age ≥18 years, fluent in English or Spanish, and in the United States) through online or social media advertisements and through relevant organizations. Participants are randomized to view SiD or a control website at their own pace; all participants complete web-based questionnaires at baseline, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome is immediate preparation for decision-making; secondary outcomes include longitudinal decision outcomes and self-reported modifications to firearm access. The relative reach and effectiveness of each recruitment method (online/social media and through relevant organizations) will be assessed by examining differences in caregiver participation, retention rates, and relative cost. RESULTS: The study enrollment began in May 2022. As of December 2022, a total of 117 participants had enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. The results from this study will inform how best to support caregivers in decision-making regarding firearm safety. Further, results may guide approaches for recruiting caregivers and for dissemination of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05173922; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05173922. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43702.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Older Adult Driving in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected driving and health outcomes in older adults. METHODS: We compared Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study participants enrolled before (December 2019 to March 2020) versus during the pandemic (May 2020 to June 2021). Participants were English-speaking, licensed drivers (≥70 years) who drove weekly and had a primary care provider at a study site and ≥1 medical condition potentially associated with driving cessation. We used baseline self-reported measures on mobility and health. RESULTS: Compared to those enrolled pre-COVID-19 (n = 61), more participants enrolled during COVID-19 (n = 240) reported driving reductions (26% vs. 70%, p < .001) and more often for personal preference (vs. medical/emotional reasons). While mean social isolation was higher during than pre-COVID-19, self-reported depression, stress, and overall health PROMIS scores did not differ significantly. DISCUSSION: Our findings highlight the resiliency of some older adults and have implications for mitigating the negative effects of driving cessation.

"Is it time to stop driving?": A randomized clinical trial of an online decision aid for older drivers.

BACKGROUND: Many older adults face the difficult decision of when to stop driving. We sought to test whether an online driving decision aid (DDA) would improve decision quality. METHODS: This prospective two-arm randomized trial enrolled English-speaking licensed drivers (age ≥70 years) without significant cognitive impairment but with ≥1 diagnosis associated with increased likelihood of driving cessation; all participants received primary care in clinics associated with study sites in three states. The intervention was the online Healthwise® DDA for older adults addressing "Is it time to stop driving?"; control was web-based information for older drivers only. The primary outcome was decision conflict as estimated by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS; lower scores indicate higher quality). Secondary outcomes were knowledge and decision self-efficacy about driving decisions. We examined postrandomization differences in primary and secondary outcomes by study arm using generalized linear mixed-effects models with adjustment for site and prerandomization scores. RESULTS: Among 301 participants (mean age: 77.1 years), 51.2% identified as female and the majority as non-Hispanic (99.0%) and white (95.3%); 98.0% lived in an urban area. Participant characteristics were similar by study arm but differed across sites. Intervention participants had a lower mean DCS score (12.3 DDA vs 15.2 control; adjusted mean ratio [AMR] 0.76, 95%CI 0.61-0.95; p = 0.017). Intervention participants had higher mean knowledge scores (88.9 DDA vs. 79.9 control; OR 1.13, 95%CI 1.01-1.27, p = 0.038); there was no difference between groups in self-efficacy scores. The DDA had high acceptability; 86.9% of those who viewed it said they would recommend it to others in similar situations. CONCLUSIONS: The online Healthwise® DDA decreased decision conflict and increased knowledge in this sample of English-speaking, older adults without significant cognitive impairment, although most chose to continue driving. Use of such resources in clinical or community settings may support older adults as they transition from driving to other forms of mobility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier "Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO)" NCT04141891.

The Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study: design and methods of a multi-center study of decision aid for older drivers.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making about when to stop driving for older adults involves assessment of driving risk, availability of support or resources, and strong emotions about loss of independence. Although the risk of being involved in a fatal crash increases with age, driving cessation can negatively impact an older adult's health and well-being. Decision aids can enhance the decision-making process by increasing knowledge of the risks and benefits of driving cessation and improve decision quality. The impact of decision aids regarding driving cessation for older adults is unknown. METHODS: The Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study is a multi-site, two-armed randomized controlled trial that will test the impact of a decision aid on older adults' decisions about changes in driving behaviors and cessation. AUTO will enroll 300 drivers age ≥ 70 years with a study partner (identified by each driver); the dyads will be randomized into two groups (n = 150/group). The decision aid group will view the web-based decision aid created by Healthwise at baseline and the control group will review information about driving that does not include evidence-based elements on risks and benefits and values clarification about driving decisions. The AUTO trial will compare the effect of the decision aid, versus control, on a) immediate decision quality (measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale; primary outcome); b) longitudinal psychosocial outcomes at 12 and 24 months (secondary outcomes); and c) longitudinal driving behaviors (including reduction or cessation) at 12 and 24 months (secondary outcomes). Planned stratified analyses will examine the effects in subgroups defined by cognitive function, decisional capacity, and readiness to stop driving. DISCUSSION: The AUTO study is the first large-scale randomized trial of a driving decision aid for older adults. Results from this study will directly inform clinical practice about how best to support older adults in decision-making about driving. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04141891 . Registered on October 28, 2019. Located at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04141891.

Lethal means counseling for suicide prevention: Views of emergency department clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Lethal means safety - counseling and guidance about reducing access to home firearms and medications - is recommended for emergency department patients at risk of suicide. Decision aids are tools that can facilitate potentially difficult decisions by incorporating personal preferences and values. The present study evaluates clinician perceptions about the implementation and utility of "Lock to Live," a lethal means safety decision aid. METHOD: One-on-one qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 15) at three large emergency departments. Interviewees were asked to evaluate the "Lock to Live" decision tool and its potential implementation and utilization in the emergency department. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were coded via thematic analysis; two coders developed a shared codebook iteratively with high interrater reliability. RESULTS: Perspectives on the tool fell into three domains: (1) patients (use with patients and families), (2) clinicians, and (3) emergency department system. Interviewees noted that the tool had numerous potential benefits but that its uptake and effectiveness would depend on clinicians' perceptions on its utility, time constraints, and integration into workflow. Addressable concerns related to relationship to other resources, fit within emergency department workflow, and clarification about which emergency department clinician types should use the tool. CONCLUSIONS: "Lock to Live" represents a promising new tool for use in suicide prevention as an aid to lethal means counseling. This qualitative study provides insights into the importance of considering the clinical environment when designing and implementing interventions.

An Interactive Web-Based Lethal Means Safety Decision Aid for Suicidal Adults (Lock to Live): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Counseling to reduce access to lethal means such as firearms and medications is recommended for suicidal adults but does not routinely occur. We developed the Web-based Lock to Live (L2L) decision aid to help suicidal adults and their families choose options for safer home storage. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of L2L among suicidal adults in emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: At 4 EDs, we enrolled participants (English-speaking, community-dwelling, suicidal adults) in a pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized in a 13:7 ratio to L2L or control (website with general suicide prevention information) groups and received a 1-week follow-up telephone call. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the intervention (n=33) and control (n=16) groups. At baseline, many participants reported having access to firearms (33/49, 67%), medications (46/49, 94%), or both (29/49, 59%). Participants viewed L2L for a median of 6 min (IQR 4-10 min). L2L also had very high acceptability; almost all participants reported that they would recommend it to someone in the same situation, that the options felt realistic, and that L2L was respectful of values about firearms. In an exploratory analysis of this pilot trial, more participants in the L2L group reported reduced firearm access at follow-up, although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The L2L decision aid appears feasible and acceptable for use among adults with suicide risk and may be a useful adjunct to lethal means counseling and other suicide prevention interventions. Future large-scale studies are needed to determine the effect on home access to lethal means. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03478501; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03478501.