Survey of Occupational Therapy Driver Assessors' Rehabilitation Interventions With Older Drivers.

The rehabilitation strategies used by occupational therapy driver assessors with older drivers with age-related decline or health conditions are not well understood. The objective of the study was to describe driver rehabilitation interventions used by Australian driver assessors, identify factors that guide rehabilitation choices, and identify barriers and facilitators encountered. An online survey was emailed to 300 driver assessors. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and to rank order participant responses. A total of 148 respondents selected from a combined total of 655 interventions. The four most common rehabilitation methods were (a) graded driving (18%, n = 118), (b) practicing specific maneuvers (17.7%, n = 116), (c) using a modified vehicle (16.9%, n = 111), and (d) graded driving in local areas only (15.1%, n = 99). The most common barrier limiting driver rehabilitation was cost (M = 2.92, SD = 1.24). The most frequently used driver rehabilitation method was on-road training. Practice can be enhanced by collating and evaluating resources, and ensuring effective interventions are more accessible.

Determination of the minimal clinically important difference on the Australian therapy outcome measures for occupational therapy (AusTOMs-OT).

PURPOSE: Outcome measures must be responsive to change (able to show statistically significant change) and must also produce information on the degree of change that is clinically significant, or the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This research sought to establish the MCID for four domains of the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs-OT). METHODS: Using a criterion approach, 30 international clinicians were surveyed about their perceptions of the MCID for AusTOMs-OT. Second, using a distribution-based approach, the MCID was calculated as half of the standard deviation (SD) of the AusTOMs-OT raw scores for a sample of 787 clients. RESULTS: Just over half the clinicians surveyed indicated that a one-point change represented the MCID for AusTOMs-OT for three domains, and 0.5-point change showed MCID for the final domain. The data analysed for the distribution-based calculation indicated that the half SD ranged from 0.51 to 0.61. CONCLUSION: Using both criterion and distribution-based approaches, this research empirically demonstrated that a change on the four domains of the AusTOMs-OT of between 0.51 and 1 point shows MCID. Considering these findings, and for ease of clinical interpretation, it is recommended that a one-point shift be adopted as the MCID across all domains. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: The AusTOMs-OT have been previously shown to be valid and reliable outcome measures for use with all client groups across all settings including rehabilitation. So that rehabilitation professionals can interpret outcomes data from AusTOMs-OT, information must be available on the degree of change that is clinically significant (also referred to as the minimal clinically important difference or MCID). Using empirical calculations as well as clinician opinion, it is recommended that a one-point shift be used as the minimal clinically important difference for the AusTOMs-OT.