The effect of supervised Tai Chi intervention compared to a physiotherapy program on fall-related clinical outcomes: a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess some fall-related clinical variables (balance, gait, fear of falling, functional autonomy, self-actualization and self-efficacy) that might explain the fact that supervised Tai Chi has a better impact on preventing falls compared to a conventional physiotherapy program. Methods: The participants (152 older adults over 65 who were admitted to a geriatric day hospital program) were randomly assigned to either a supervised Tai Chi group or the usual physiotherapy. The presence of the clinical variables related to falls was evaluated before the intervention (T1), immediately after (T2), and 12 months after the end of the intervention (T3). Results: Both exercise programs significantly improved fall-related outcomes but only the Tai Chi intervention group decreased the incidence of falls. For both groups, most variables followed the same pattern, i.e. showed significant improvement with the intervention between T1 and T2, and followed by a statistically significant decrease at the T3 evaluation. However, self-efficacy was the only variable that improved solely with the Tai Chi intervention (p = 0.001). Conclusions: The impact of supervised Tai Chi on fall prevention can not be explained by a differential effect on balance, gait and fear of falling. It appeared to be related to an increase of general self-efficacy, a phenomenon which is not seen in the conventional physiotherapy program.Implications for RehabilitationEach participant received a multidisciplinary intervention with either Tai Chi or physical therapy.Both interventions were associated with improved balance, gait, less fear of falling, improved functional autonomy and greater self actualisation.Only Tai Chi decreased the incidence of falls which appeared to be related to self-efficacy.Tai Chi seems to be a good alternative to physical therapy exercises to prevent falls in frail older people.
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 | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".