MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589426778 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00021

Modified Delphi Consensus to Suggest Key Elements of Stepping On Falls Prevention Program

2017· article· en· W2589426778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane Mahoney, Lindy Clemson, Amy E. Schlotthauer, Karin A. Mack, Terry Shea, Vicki L. Gobel, Sandy Cech

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsDelphi methodRasch modelFall preventionDelphiPsychologyMedical educationPoison controlApplied psychologyMedicineSuicide preventionComputer scienceEnvironmental healthArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Falls among older adults result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Community-based programs have been shown to decrease the rate of falls. In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded a research study to determine how to successfully disseminate the evidence-based fall prevention program (Stepping On) in the community setting. As the first step for this study, a panel of subject matter experts were convened to suggest which parts of the Stepping On fall prevention program were considered key elements, which could not be modified by implementers. Methods: Older adult fall prevention experts from the United States, Canada, and Australia participated in a modified Delphi technique process to suggest key program elements of Stepping On. Forty-four experts were invited to ensure that the panel of experts would consist of equal numbers of physical therapists, occupational therapists, geriatricians, exercise scientists, and public health researchers. Consensus was determined by percent of agreement among panelists. A Rasch analysis of item fit was conducted to explore the degree of diversity and/or homogeneity of responses across our panelists. Results: The Rasch analysis of the 19 panelists using fit statistics shows there was a reasonable and sufficient range of diverse perspectives (Infit MnSQ 1.01, Z score -0.1, Outfit MnSQ 0.96, Z score –0.2 with a separation of 4.89). Consensus was achieved that these elements were key: 17 of 18 adult learning elements, 11 of 22 programming, 12 of 15 exercise, seven of eight upgrading exercises, two of four peer co-leader’s role, and all of the home visits, booster sessions, group leader’s role, and background and training of group leader elements. The top five key elements were: 1) use plain language, 2) develop trust, 3) engage people in what is meaningful and contextual for them, 4) train participants for cues in self-monitoring quality of exercises, and 5) group leader learns about exercises and understands how to progress them. Discussion: The Delphi consensus process suggested key elements related to Stepping On program delivery. These elements were considered essential to program effectiveness. Findings from this study laid the foundation for translation of Stepping On for broad U.S. dissemination.

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)0.176
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1760.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207