Falls prevention interventions for older adults with low vision: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults with low vision are especially vulnerable to falls. There are no comprehensive reviews of fall prevention interventions for older adults with vision loss who live in the community. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review the evidence regarding community-based falls prevention interventions that appear inclusive of and/or accessible to individuals with low vision. METHOD: A scoping review was completed using the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, and the charted data were analyzed using sums and percentages and qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: Seventeen publications were selected for this review. The analysis allowed for a thorough description of the types of falls prevention interventions (multiple components, home safety/modification, tai chi, the Alexander Technique, improvement of vision through vision assessment and referral, vision/agility training, and yoga), how each intervention addresses vision impairment, and the relation of results to falls risk. IMPLICATIONS: Falls prevention research targeting individuals with visual impairment is limited, and the intervention approaches available may not be effective for older adults with permanent vision loss.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".