Community-based intervention to optimise falls risk management: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: falls are the leading causes of accidental death and fragility fractures in older adults. Interventions that assess and reduce falls risk are underutilised. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted community-based programme aimed at optimising evidence-based management of patients at risk for fall-related fractures. DESIGN: this was a randomised trial performed from 2003 to 2006. SETTING: community-based intervention in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: eligible patients were community-dwelling, aged > or =55 years and identified to be at risk for fall-related fractures. A total of 201 patients were allocated to the intervention group or to usual care. INTERVENTION: components of the intervention included assessment of falls risk, functional status and home environment, and patient education. MEASUREMENTS: primary outcome was the implementation of appropriate falls risk assessment at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included falls and fractures at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: the mean age of participants was 72 years, and 41% had fallen with injury in the previous year. Compared to usual care, the intervention increased the number of referrals made to physiotherapy [21% (21/101) vs 6.0% (6/100); relative risk (RR) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-8.22] and occupational therapy [15% (15/101) vs 0%; RR 30.7, 95% CI 1.86 to >500]. At 12 months, the number of falls in the intervention group was greater than in the usual care group [23% (23/101) vs 11% (11/100); RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.07-4.02]. CONCLUSIONS: compared to usual care, a multi-faceted intervention increased referrals to physiotherapy and occupational therapy but did not reduce risk of falls. Similar falls reduction interventions cannot be recommended based on the results of this study.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".