Aim: To identify and synthesise existing decision tools, scales, and aids (including peer‑reviewed and grey literature) that support older adults in deciding whether and when to retire from driving, and to examine what these resources contain and how they operate.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (PROSPERO: CRD420251239566). Searches of Medline and PsycINFO databases were conducted, plus grey literature was screened (e.g., targeted organisation websites and Google; first 150 results per term screened). Inclusion required a question-based resource designed for the older driver to complete to support driving-retirement decision-making. Data were extracted on study/resource characteristics (e.g., design, item format, feedback, validation). Item-level thematic analysis (meta-synthesis) used inductive coding to generate themes/sub-themes, alongside frequency analysis.
Key findings:
- 19 resources were identified (11 peer‑reviewed; 8 grey literature), largely from Western, English-speaking countries.
- Resources varied widely in length and format (median 20 items; range 6–101), with yes/no items most common (~59%).
- Five overarching content themes emerged (24 sub-themes): external influences, safety factors, planning, emotional factors, and mobility factors.
- Safety factors dominated item content (54.8% of all items), especially driving ability; planning and mobility factors were least represented.
- Few resources reported validation (only a minority described any validation approach; none of the grey literature resources reported development/validation).
- Many resources provided limited or no user feedback; none provided a clear, concrete recommendation on whether the user should stop driving.
Implications:
There is a gap in evidence-based, validated decision supports that translates self-reflection into actionable guidance. Future resources should better balance safety with planning, mobility alternatives, emotional impacts, and social/support influences to reflect the full decision context. Stronger and more transparent development and validation processes (e.g., expert consensus/Delphi work and testing across diverse populations and diagnoses) are needed, and partnerships between researchers and community organisations may improve both scientific rigour and dissemination/uptake. Improved decisional resources could also complement fitness-to-drive policy and clinical practice by supporting earlier conversations, preparation, and more consistent assessment pathways.