Fear of falling and its association with life-space mobility of older adults: a cross-sectional analysis using data from five international sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: fear of falling (FOF) is a major health concern among community-dwelling older adults that could restrict mobility. Objective: to examine the association of FOF with life-space mobility (i.e. the spatial area a person moves through in daily life) of community-dwelling older adults from five diverse sites. Methods: in total, 1,841 older adults (65-74 years) were recruited from Kingston, Canada; Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada; Tirana, Albania; Manizales, Colombia and Natal, Brazil. FOF was assessed using the Fall Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I total score), and the life space was quantified using the Life-Space Assessment (LSA), a scale that runs from 0 (minimum life space) to 120 (maximum life space). Results: the overall average LSA total score was 68.7 (SD: 21.2). Multiple-linear regression analysis demonstrated a significant relationship of FOF with life-space mobility, even after adjusting for functional, clinical and sociodemographic confounders (B = -0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to -0.04). The FOF × site interaction term was significant with a stronger linear relationship found in the Canadian sites and Tirana compared with the South American sites. After adjusting for all confounders, the association between FOF with LSA remained significant at Kingston (B = -0.32, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.01), Saint-Hyacinthe (B = -0.81, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.32) and Tirana (B = -0.57, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.24). Conclusion: FOF is an important psychological factor that is associated with reduction in life space of older adults in different social and cultural contexts, and the strength of this association is site specific. Addressing FOF among older adults would help improve their mobility in local communities, which in turn would improve social participation and health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".