Fall-Related Psychological Concerns and Anxiety among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fear of falling and other fall-related psychological concerns (FRPCs), such as falls-efficacy and balance confidence, are highly prevalent among community-dwelling older adults. Anxiety and FRPCs have frequently, but inconsistently, been found to be associated in the literature. The purpose of this study is to clarify those inconsistencies with a systematic review and meta-analysis and to evaluate if the strength of this relationship varies based on the different FRPC constructs used (e.g., fear of falling, falls-efficacy or balance confidence). A systematic review was conducted through multiple databases (e.g., MEDLINE, PsycINFO) to include all articles published before June 10th 2015 that measured anxiety and FRPCs in community-dwelling older adults. Active researchers in the field were also contacted in an effort to include unpublished studies. The systematic review led to the inclusion of twenty relevant articles (n = 4738). A random-effect meta-analysis revealed that the mean effect size for fear of falling and anxiety is r = 0.32 (95% CI: 0.22-0.40), Z = 6.49, p < 0.001 and the mean effect size for falls-efficacy or balance confidence and anxiety is r = 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23-0.40), Z = 6.72, p < 0.001. A Q-test for heterogeneity revealed that the two effect sizes are not significantly different (Q(19) = 0.13, p = n.s.). This study is the first meta-analysis on the relationship between anxiety and FRPCs among community-dwelling older adults. It demonstrates the importance of considering anxiety when treating older adults with FRPCs.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".