Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Secondary Prevention of Falls in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Falls are a significant problem for older adults. Individuals who have sustained a fall come to the attention of health care providers and are at risk of further falls. To promote the highest quality of care and reduce variation in care, a practice guideline is needed. Summarization of evidence regarding falls may be useful to researchers in this field. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based guidelines of assessment and treatment to prevent falls in older adults and to provide researchers with tables of risk factor studies and randomized controlled trials of falls prevention. METHODS: A template for the development of practice guidelines from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research was used. Evidence for risk factors was accepted from prospective studies with more than 80% follow-up. Potentially modifiable risk factors were selected and a schema for evaluating the importance of each risk factor was used. Evidence for interventions was examined from randomized controlled trials and strength of the evidence was graded. Recommendations for aspects of care where judgment was required were made by panel consensus. RESULTS: Information was drawn from 46 risk factor studies and 37 randomized controlled trials to develop a practice guideline consisting of assessment items and recommended interventions for community-dwelling and institution-dwelling older adults separately. For clinicians, a check list is provided. Summary tables of the results of studies are given to substantiate the recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: For community-dwelling older adults, there is strong evidence for multi-factorial specific risk assessment and targeted treatment. Balance exercises are recommended for all individuals who have had a fall and there is evidence for a program of home physiotherapy for women over 80 years of age regardless of risk factor status. For institutional settings, the establishment of a falls program for safety checks, ongoing staff education and monitoring is substantiated by research. Residents who have fallen need to be assessed for specific risk factors and clinical indicators to determine relevant management options.
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 | 0.032 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.015 |
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".