Search

Introduction: Driver‐trained occupational therapists are advanced practitioners who work with people to help maintain their independence and autonomy through driving. There is a lack of investigation of professional reasoning processes for why interventions are recommended by driver‐trained occupational therapists. This research project sought to explore the reasoning of driver‐trained occupational therapists when they plan, implement, and reflect on driver rehabilitation interventions. Methods: In‐depth semistructured interviews (n = 7) and one focus group (n = 5) were conducted with 12 experienced driver‐trained occupational therapists, comprising a wide range of experience, client populations, and licensing jurisdictions. Data were analysed using a modified template analysis approach. Results: Seven higher order modes that reflect professional reasoning theory and hierarchical models were evident in the work of the driver‐trained occupational therapists, with no new modes of reasoning emerging. Ethical reasoning regarding the balance of safety versus client independence was an overarching shared framework, with therapists mostly using interactive and conditional reasoning in practice. Twenty‐three second‐level themes were identified that exemplify how the reasoning modes operate in practice. Therapists described assessment activity even when solely asked about intervention, indicating the importance of assessment to intervention design. The full hierarchy of reasoning was evident during the rehabilitation phase. Conclusion: These findings elucidate the application of professional reasoning in advanced occupational therapy practices and could support driver‐trained occupational therapists in making driving rehabilitation recommendations if used in reflective practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Returning to driving is often a goal for people with acquired disabilities. Vehicle modifications make it possible for people with both acquired and lifelong disabilities to drive yet can be costly. There has been no financial evaluation of vehicle modifications in Australia or internationally. Methods: A social return on investment analysis of vehicle modifications was undertaken. Primary data were collected via qualitative interviews with consumers and other stakeholders (e.g. driver‐trained occupational therapists, rehabilitation physicians, driving instructors, vehicle modifiers) (n = 23). Secondary data were collected from literature searches and used to identify suitable financial proxies and make estimations of the proportion of drivers with vehicle modifications experiencing each outcome. A co‐investment model was adopted to estimate social return on investment and payback period for funder and consumer. Five scenarios were developed to illustrate social return for low‐cost modifications (Scenario 1) through to high‐cost modifications (Scenario 5). Results: Social return on investment ratios was positive for funder and consumer investment in all five scenarios. Social return on investment calculations based on co‐investment ranged from $17.32 for every $1 invested (Scenario 1) to $2.78 for every $1 invested (Scenario 5). Consumers' payback periods were between 5.4 and 7.1 months, and funders between 3.5 weeks and 2 years 8.4 months. Conclusion: Vehicle modifications represent sound investments for both funders and consumers. Given the short payback periods, funders should reconsider age restrictions on vehicles considered suitable for modifications, especially for low‐ to medium‐cost modifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]