MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415520355 · doi:10.1177/0733464816653361

An Exploratory Survey of Older Women’s Post-Fall Decisions

2016· article· en· W2415520355 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caroline D. Bergeron, Daniela B. Friedman, S. Melinda Spencer, Susan C. Miller, DeAnne K. Hilfinger Messias, Robert McKeever

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsPsychological interventionGerontologyDemographicsPsychologyOpenness to experienceHealth careFall preventionLiteracyHealth literacyMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlNursingDemographySocial psychologyEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined factors influencing older women's post-fall decision making. We surveyed 130 independent older women from continuing care retirement communities and non-institutional homes. We categorized women's post-fall decisions as medical, corrective, and social decisions, and examined the associations between post-fall decision categories, decisional conflict, number of post-fall changes, self-rated health, frequency of falls, severity of falls, health literacy, awareness and openness to long-term care institutional options, and demographics. Older women experienced greater decisional conflict when making medical decisions versus social ( p = .012) and corrective ( p = .047) decisions. Significant predictors of post-fall decisional conflict were awareness of institutional care options ( p = .001) and health literacy ( p = .001). Future educational interventions should address knowledge deficits and provide resources to enhance collaborative efforts to lower women's post-fall decisional conflict and increase satisfaction in the decisions they make after a fall.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207