Does Fall Arrest Strategy Training Added to a Fall Prevention Programme Improve Balance, Strength, and Agility in Older Women? A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of a unique exercise programme (Fall Arrest Strategy Training, or FAST) on upper body strength, range of motion (ROM), and fall risk in older women. FAST was designed to improve upper body capacity to prevent injury when a fall cannot be avoided. Method: A quasi-randomized site design included 71 older women (aged 67–95 y, mean age 83 years), who participated either in a standard fall prevention programme (Staying on Your Feet, or SOYF; n=29) or in SOYF combined with FAST (n=42). The women were measured three times—at baseline, after the 12-week intervention, and again 12 weeks later—for upper body strength, ROM, and fall risk factors (fall risk questionnaire, balance, mobility, and leg strength). Results: No significant differences were found in age, physical activity, or cognitive or functional status between the SOYF–standard and the SOYF–FAST groups. Both groups improved their fall risk status after the intervention, with no significant differences between them; however, the SOYF–FAST group showed greater improvements in upper extremity strength and ROM (p=0.007). Conclusion: FAST can feasibly be integrated into fall prevention programming, with additional gains in upper body strength and ROM in older women.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".