Reducing Fear of Falling in Seniors Through Education and Activity Programs: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative effect of education and activity programs on fear of falling, balance, strength, and health status. DESIGN: A randomized intervention trial with two groups (education and activity); evaluators were blind to group allocation. SETTING: Motor performance laboratory at Queen's University. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight community-dwelling seniors who reported a fear of falling and activity restriction but were free of neurological and mobility-limiting orthopedic conditions. INTERVENTIONS: Programs designed to reduce fear of falling were delivered weekly to groups of three to five seniors for 8 weeks, each session lasting 1 hour. The activity program included low-resistance exercises and weight-shifting activities. Education focused on identifying and reducing risk factors for falls. MEASUREMENTS: Balance confidence, activity level, limits of stability (LOS), isokinetic strength, and health status were measured twice preintervention (baseline), postintervention, and 6 weeks later. RESULTS: Both programs reduced fear of falling (P <.006) as ascertained from the balance confidence scores. Differential effects were observed in LOS (P <.05); activity improved balance, whereas education led to modest declines. Gains in perception of health status were limited to physical health for the activity group and mental health for the education group. Benefits were generally sustained at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Improved balance confidence is not intervention-specific, but associated changes in physical ability and health status are a function of the composition of the intervention program.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".