MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145169250 · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0648-7

Action Seniors! - secondary falls prevention in community-dwelling senior fallers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2015· article· en· W2145169250 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Teresa Liu‐Ambrose, Jennifer C. Davis, Chun Liang Hsu, Caitlin Gomez, Kelly Vertes, Carlo A. Marra, Penelope M. A. Brasher, Elizabeth Dao, Karim M. Khan, Wendy L. Cook, Meghan G Donaldson, Ryan E. Rhodes, Larry Dian

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSt. Paul's HospitalVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteMemorial University of NewfoundlandHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCAlzheimer Society Research ProgramAlzheimer SocietyHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialFall preventionPoison controlPsychological interventionInjury preventionSuicide preventionIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyCost effectivenessGerontologyOccupational safety and healthFalls in older adultsEnvironmental healthNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Falls are a 'geriatric giant' and are the third leading cause of chronic disability worldwide. About 30% of community-dwellers over the age of 65 experience one or more falls every year leading to significant risk for hospitalization, institutionalization, and even death. As the proportion of older adults increases, falls will place an increasing demand and cost on the health care system. Exercise can effectively and efficiently reduce falls. Specifically, the Otago Exercise Program has demonstrated benefit and cost-effectiveness for the primary prevention of falls in four randomized trials of community-dwelling seniors. Although evidence is mounting, few studies have evaluated exercise for secondary falls prevention (that is, preventing falls among those with a significant history of falls). Hence, we propose a randomized controlled trial powered for falls that will, for the first time, assess the efficacy and efficiency of the Otago Exercise Program for secondary falls prevention. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial among 344 community-dwelling seniors aged 70 years and older who attend a falls prevention clinic to assess the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of a 12-month Otago Exercise Program intervention as a secondary falls prevention strategy. Participants randomized to the control group will continue to behave as they did prior to study enrolment. The economic evaluation will examine the incremental costs and benefits generated by using the Otago Exercise Program intervention versus the control. DISCUSSION: The burden of falls is significant. The challenge is to make a difference - to discover effective, ideally cost-effective, interventions that prevent injurious falls that can be readily translated to the population. Our proposal is very practical - the exercise program requires minimal equipment, the physical therapist expertise is widely available, and seniors in Canada and elsewhere have adopted the program and complied with it. Our innovation includes applying the intervention to a targeted high-risk population, aiming to provide the best value for money. Given society's limited financial resources and the known and increasing burden of falls, there is an urgent need to test this feasible intervention which would be eminently ready for roll out. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System: NCT01029171; registered 7 December 2009.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.009
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.016

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.

Opus teacher head0.253
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207