Fall Risk Beliefs and Behaviors Following a Fall in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Pilot Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real uptake of recommendations is at the crux of community-based fall prevention. This mixed methods intervention study investigated how knowledge of one's own fall risk influenced self-reported behaviors and beliefs about falls and fall prevention in the home by older adults. Between one-on-one semi-structured interviews, participants received their individual scores compared to age-matched normative values for the Falls Efficacy Scale, Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, Biodex™ Fall Risk Test, and cut scores for the Timed Up and Go and Berg Balance Scale. Change scores on the Falls Behavioural Scale for Older Adults were reviewed as norm values were not found in the literature. Findings from the fall-related assessments and interviews reiterated the complexity of falls and fall prevention in a fluctuating curve of "awareness" comprised of "having concern, being careful," "accepting," and "action/behavior related to fall prevention." Despite some uptake of recommended fall prevention advice, being perceived as susceptible to falls remained unacceptable to these participants, limiting real transfer or expressed belief in fall risk.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it