Risk Factors for Restriction in Activity Associated With Fear of Falling Among Seniors Within the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the significance of falling, fear of falling may represent a greater pervasive concern to the health of seniors. Activity restriction, resulting from fear of falling, which may or may not develop after a fall, may lead to balance deterioration, functional decline, anxiety or reductions in social/leisure/physical activity opportunities, and, consequently, compromised quality of life and health. METHODS: The purpose of this research was to determine the risk factors for activity restriction resulting from fear of falling among community-based seniors using an early version of the interRAI Community Health Assessment (interRAI CHA). All participants (n = 560) were enrolled in 1 of 5 different fall intervention programs in Ontario funded through the Falls Prevention Initiative sponsored by Health Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada. All participants (or a predetermined number of seniors if the subject pool was extensive) were assessed both before and after intervention. Subjects were assessed using the interRAI CHA. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of seniors reported restricting their activity as a result of fear of falling. Risk factors predictive of activity restriction included previous history of falling, compromised instrumental activities of daily living, compromised cognitive performance, presence of pain, female sex, and impaired gait. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of falling is a prevalent issue among seniors, which has the potential to alter their quality of life and morbidity, and as such, including fear of falling in public health programs, health policies, and screening efforts seems imperative. The present findings add to the present research on risk factors for activity restriction because of fear of falling. These findings do not advocate for restriction of activity to prevent falls because restriction is not a good solution to fall prevention. Using a standardized and comprehensive tool such as the interRAI CHA would assist researchers in making comparisons between different research groups as well as assessing fear of falling from a multidisciplinary perspective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".