MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152137234 · doi:10.1017/s0714980809990377

The Effects and Costs of a Multifactorial and Interdisciplinary Team Approach to Falls Prevention for Older Home Care Clients ‘At Risk’ for Falling: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2010· article· fr· W2152137234 on OpenAlexaff
Maureen Markle‐Reid, Gina Browne, Amiram Gafni, Jacqueline Roberts, Robin Weir, Lehana Thabane, Melody Miles, Vida Vaitonis, Catherine Hecimovich, Pamela Baxter, S. Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialFear of fallingFalling (accident)Fall preventionMedicinePoison controlInjury preventionSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthIntervention (counseling)GerontologyHuman factors and ergonomicsQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study determined the effects and costs of a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention. Randomized controlled trial of 109 older adults who are at risk for falls. This was a six-month multifactorial and evidence-based prevention strategy involving an interdisciplinary team. The primary outcome was number of falls during the six-month follow-up. At six months, no difference in the mean number of falls between groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the intervention effectively reduced falls in men (75-84 years old) with a fear of falling or negative fall history. Number of slips and trips was greatly reduced; and emotional health had a greater improvement in role functioning related to emotional health in the intervention group. Quality of life was improved, slips and trips were reduced, as were falls among males (75-84 years old) with a fear of falling or negative fall history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations73
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207