Fear of Outdoor Falling Among Community-Dwelling Middle-Aged and Older Adults: The Role of Neighborhood Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Fear of falling is a substantial barrier to walking and has been associated with increased fall risks. This study examines neighborhood environmental risk factors related to fear of outdoor falling in middle-aged and older adults. Research Design and Methods: A total of 394 participants aged 50 years or older living independently in the community were recruited between 2013 and 2014 from an integrated health care network serving Central Texas. Fear of outdoor falling and perceived neighborhood environmental variables were assessed using self-reported questionnaires. Logistic regression identified perceived neighborhood environmental variables associated with fear of outdoor falling. Results: Sixty-nine (17.9%) of 385 participants reported having a fear of outdoor falling. Compared to those who did not report a fear of outdoor falling, those who reported having a fear of outdoor falling were more likely to be adults aged 65 years or older (odds ratio [OR] = 2.974, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.247-7.094), be female (OR = 4.423, 95% CI = 1.830-10.689), have difficulty with walking for a quarter of a mile (OR = 2.761, 95% CI = 1.124-6.782), and have had a fall in the past year (OR = 4.720, 95% CI = 1.472-15.137). Among the neighborhood environmental characteristics examined, low traffic speed on streets (OR = 0.420, 95% CI = 0.188-0.935), drainage ditches (OR = 2.383, 95% CI = 1.136-5.000), and broken sidewalks (OR = 3.800, 95% CI = 1.742-8.288) were associated with the odds of having a fear of outdoor falling. Discussion and Implications: In addition to the individual factors, findings from this study suggest the importance of addressing the environmental risk factors in identifying and reducing fear of outdoor falling among middle-aged and older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".