Effectiveness of Senior Dance on risk factors for falls in older adults (DanSE): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Strong evidence shows that exercise is effective to improve fall risk factors among older people. However, older people's participation and adherence to exercise programmes is suboptimal. Type of exercise and apathy are reported to be barriers to exercise participation, suggesting that new effective interventions are needed. The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial is to investigate the effect of Senior Dance plus brief education for falls prevention on balance among people aged 60 years or over, compared with a control group receiving only brief education. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-blind randomised controlled trial will involve 82 community-dwelling older people aged 60 years or over who are cognitively intact. Participants allocated to the intervention group will attend a single educational class on strategies to prevent falls, and will participate in a 12-week, twice-weekly group-based programme of Senior Dance. The Senior Dance consists of different choreographies, which include rhythmic and simple movements with rhythmic folk songs. Participants allocated to the control group will attend the same educational class that intervention group participants will receive, and will be instructed not to take part in any regular exercise programme. The primary outcome will be single-leg stance with eyes closed. Secondary outcomes include: Short Physical Performance Battery, Falls Efficacy Scale, Trail Making Test and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Continuous outcomes will be reported using mean (SD) or median (IQR), depending on the distribution of the data. The linear regression approach to analysis of covariance will be used to compare the mean effect between groups. All patients will be included in the analyses following an intention-to-treat approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Human Ethics Committee of the São Paulo State University (CAAE 48665215.9.0000.5402). Outcomes will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02603523, Pre-results.
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 | 0.057 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.015 |
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".