Study protocol for the Flooring for Injury Prevention (FLIP) Study: a randomised controlled trial in long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A promising strategy for reducing the incidence and severity of fall-related injuries in long-term care (LTC) is to decrease the ground surface stiffness, and the subsequent forces applied to the body parts at impact, through installation of compliant flooring that does not substantially affect balance or mobility. Definitive evidence of the effects of compliant flooring on fall-related injuries in LTC is lacking. The Flooring for Injury Prevention (FLIP) Study is designed to address this gap. METHODS: The FLIP Study is a 4-year, parallel-group, 2-arm, randomised controlled superiority trial of flooring in 150 resident rooms at a LTC site. The primary objective is to determine whether compliant flooring reduces serious fall-related injuries relative to control flooring. Intervention (2.54 cm SmartCells compliant; 74 rooms) and control (2.54 cm plywood; 76 rooms) floorings were installed over the top of existing concrete floors and covered with identical 2.00 mm vinyl. The primary outcome is serious fall-related injury, defined as any impact-related injury due to a fall in a study room that results in Emergency Department visit or hospital admission. Secondary outcomes include minor fall-related injury, any fall-related injury, falls, number of fallers, fractures, and healthcare utilisation and costs for serious fall-related injuries. Randomisation of study rooms, and residents in rooms, was stratified by residential unit, and flooring assignments were concealed. Outcome ascertainment began September 2013. DISCUSSION: Results from the FLIP Study will provide evidence about the effects of compliant flooring on fall-related injuries in LTC and will guide development of safer environments for vulnerable older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01618786.
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 | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.122 | 0.020 |
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".