The physical environment as a fall risk factor in older adults: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of cross‐sectional and cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Evidence that the physical environment is a fall risk factor in older adults is inconsistent. The study evaluated and summarised evidence of the physical environment as a fall risk factor. METHODS: Eight databases (1985-2006) were searched. Investigators evaluated quality of two categories (cross-sectional and cohort) of studies, extracted and analysed data. RESULTS: Cross-sectional: falls occur in a variety of environments; gait aids were present in approximately 30% of falls. COHORT: Home hazards increased fall risk (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.36) although not significantly. When only the high quality studies were included, the OR = 1.38 (95% CI: 1.03-1.87), which was statistically significant. Use of mobility aids significantly increased fall risk in community (OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.59-2.71) and institutional (OR = 1.77; 95% CI: 1.66-1.89) settings. CONCLUSIONS: Home hazards appear to be a significant risk factor in older community-dwelling adults, although they may present the greatest risk for persons who fall repeatedly. Future research should examine relationships between mobility impairments, use of mobility aids and falls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".