Risk factors for geriatric patient falls in rehabilitation hospital settings: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature to identify and synthesize the evidence on risk factors for patient falls in geriatric rehabilitation hospital settings. DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies were systematically searched on 16 databases from inception to December 2010. REVIEW METHODS: The search strategies used a combination of terms for rehabilitation hospital patients, falls, risk factors and older adults. Cross-sectional, cohort, case-control studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English that investigated risks for falls among patients ≥65 years of age in rehabilitation hospital settings were included. Studies that investigated fall risk assessment tools, but did not investigate risk factors themselves or did not report a measure of risk (e.g. odds ratio, relative risk) were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 2,824 references were identified; only eight articles concerning six studies met the inclusion criteria. In these, 1,924 geriatric rehabilitation patients were followed. The average age of the patients ranged from 77 to 83 years, the percentage of women ranged from 56% to 81%, and the percentage of fallers ranged from 15% to 54%. Two were case-control studies, two were RCTs and four were prospective cohort studies. Several intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for falls were identified. CONCLUSION: Carpet flooring, vertigo, being an amputee, confusion, cognitive impairment, stroke, sleep disturbance, anticonvulsants, tranquilizers and antihypertensive medications, age between 71 and 80, previous falls, and need for transfer assistance are risk factors for geriatric patient falls in rehabilitation hospital settings.
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 | 0.013 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".