MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3178496676 · doi:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000316

Circumstances and Factors Associated With Falls Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Diagnosed With Heart Disease Using the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS)

2021· article· en· W3178496676 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Geriatric Physical Therapy · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFear of fallingMedicinePoison controlFalls in older adultsInjury preventionGrip strengthLogistic regressionPhysical therapyBonferroni correctionCognitionGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryInternal medicineMedical emergency

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To identify the circumstances of falls and the factors associated with falls among older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Baseline (2012) data from the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS), a cross-sectional study, were used. Falling was measured by the subjective question, "Have you fallen in the last 12 months?" Several subjective questions were asked to obtain information about the circumstances of falls. Potential clinical factors associated with falling were cognitive status, depressive symptoms, physical performance, grip strength, visual acuity, and fear of falling (FOF). These clinical factors were measured respectively with the Leganes Cognitive Test, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Scales Depressive Symptoms, the Short Physical Performance Battery, a Jamar handgrip dynamometer, the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) tumbling E chart placed at 2 m, and the Falls Efficacy Scale-International. A χ 2 test was used to determine whether there were significant differences in fall circumstances among older adults with and without CVD. Two-sample t tests were used to test for any significant differences between older adults with and without CVD. Bonferroni correction was applied to limit type I errors and was corrected to .007. Simple and multiple logistic regressions identified which clinical factors were associated with falling. RESULTS: A total of 429 older adults with CVD (mean age 69.5 ± 2.9) and 431 older adults without CVD (69.2 ± 2.9) participated in the study. Approximately 53% of fallers with CVD had 2 or more falls compared with fallers without CVD (39%). The most common location for falling was at home (43%) for fallers with CVD or in the street (50%) for fallers without CVD. Approximately 9% of fallers with CVD needed to be hospitalized while only 3% of fallers without CVD were admitted to the hospital. Approximately 42% of fallers with CVD had some residual sequelae (eg, being unable to walk around the house or do housework) compared with only 27% of fallers without CVD. Fallers with CVD had significantly ( P value < .007) more depressive symptoms (mean ± SD, 14.7 ± 12.9) and poorer physical performance (8.4 ± 3.0) compared with fallers without CVD (10.1 ± 9.4 and 9.6 ± 2.5, respectively); however FOF was the only significant clinical factor ( P value < .05) associated with falling for older adults with CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of recurrent falls is higher among older adults with CVD than those without CVD. Circumstances of falls among fallers with CVD differ from those identified among fallers without CVD. Fear of falling was the only predictor of fall history among older adults with CVD. The results suggest the merit of considering FOF when designing prevention and intervention programs to reduce falls among older adults with CVD.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,466

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,353
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle