Difficulties Experienced in Setting and Achieving Goals by Participants of a Falls Prevention Programme: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of participants of a falls prevention programme to set and achieve goals. METHODS: The study used a prospective longitudinal design and a mixed-methods approach to data collection. Study participants were (1) 220 older adults participating in a 15-week combined exercise and education falls prevention programme and (2) 9 practitioners (3 home-care nurses, 5 community workers, and an exercise physiologist) involved in delivering the programme. Data from goal-setting forms were analyzed, and descriptive statistics were used to determine the number of appropriate goals set and achieved. Data were analyzed according to programme setting (home- or group-based) and whether or not participants were classified as being from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) background in the Australian context. Semi-structured interviews with programme practitioners were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 144 respondents (n=75 CALD group, n=41 non-CALD group, n=6 CALD home, n=22 non-CALD home) set 178 goals. Only 101 (57%) goals could be evaluated according to achievement, because participants set goals that focused on health state instead of behaviour, set goals not relevant to falls prevention, used inappropriate constructs to measure goal achievement, and either did not review their goals or dropped out of the programme before goal review. Of these 101 goals, 64 were achieved. Practitioners described their own difficulties in understanding the process of setting health behaviour goals along with communication, cultural, and logistic difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Both CALD and non-CALD participants and those participating in both group- and home-based programmes experienced difficulty in setting and achieving goals to facilitate behaviour change for falls prevention. Data suggest that home-based participants had more difficulty in setting goals than their group-based counterparts and, to a lesser extent, that CALD participants experienced more difficulty in setting goals than their non-CALD counterparts. The use of a guided approach to goal setting and the need for more specific practitioner training and follow-up support regarding goal setting in the context of a falls prevention programme should be considered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".