Premium
Mandarin version of dementia and driving decision aid (DDDA): Development and stakeholder evaluation in Taiwan
Author(s) -
Chang Hui Chen Rita,
Ho MuHsing,
Traynor Victoria,
Tang LiYu,
Liu Megan F.,
Chien HuiWen,
Chan SuYuan,
Montayre Jed
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
international journal of older people nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.707
H-Index - 29
eISSN - 1748-3743
pISSN - 1748-3735
DOI - 10.1111/opn.12370
Subject(s) - dementia , focus group , competence (human resources) , mandarin chinese , psychology , medical education , stakeholder , cognition , test (biology) , nursing , medicine , psychiatry , social psychology , paleontology , linguistics , philosophy , public relations , disease , pathology , marketing , political science , business , biology
Abstract Background 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. Objectives 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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. Implications for practice 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.