An Occupational Therapy Perspective on Falls Prevention among Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prevention of falls among community-dwelling older adults is an important area of research because of the serious consequences that can result from falls for this population. The risk factors associated with falls tend to be categorized into two groups: intrinsic, or personal factors, such as fear of falling, age, gender, and extrinsic, or environmental factors, such as lighting or slippery surfaces. METHOD: The current falls prevention literature was reviewed using an occupational therapy perspective. RESULT: It revealed that there are only a few brief examples of the relationship between occupation and falls in the literature. The profession of occupational therapy appears to be underrepresented in the current falls prevention literature. The review highlights the important contributions that occupational therapists could make to this functional problem. PRACTICE AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS: For occupational therapy, important areas for consideration when attempting to prevent falls among older adults living in the community include using a client-centred approach, compliance, and follow up on recommendations. There is a need for more occupational therapy research specifically on occupation and falls, that explores their relationship and influence upon one another.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".