PW 1820 Development of recommendations for falls and fall-related injury prevention among older adults in british columbia, canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In British Columbia (BC), Canada, fall-related injuries are the leading cause of injury-related deaths among seniors (>65 years). On an average day, 40 seniors are hospitalized from fall-related injuries costing $1.3 million in direct healthcare. The majority of these falls occur in the community setting. Objective Develop evidence-informed recommendations for prevention of fall-related injuries among seniors living in BC communities. Methods An environmental scan was conducted to identify BC programs and initiatives for prevention of falls among seniors. Opportunities, gaps and barriers were identified to assist with direction and planning of falls prevention programming. Falls Prevention Recommendation Working Group, comprising members representing each Health Authority in BC, with extensive experience in the areas of public health, epidemiology, emergency medicine and falls prevention, was formed. The panel conducted a narrative review of literature, including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, program evaluation and grey literature related to falls and injury prevention among community living older adults. Recommendations were developed through a modified Delphi process and focus groups to develop consensus. Findings After review of the environmental scan, provincial polices, practice guidelines, training, education, and capacity across BC, as well as a preliminary feasibility assessment, we developed evidence-informed recommendations that included, promoting community awareness together with a comprehensive approach for multifactorial assessments and interventions for those seniors that are at high risk for falls. Conclusion A multi-disciplinary and multi-agency approach is needed to address complex public health problems such as falls among seniors. Policy implications For addressing a complex regional public health issue, a similar approach can be used that involves a coordinated and collaborative approach. Steps in such an approach include environmental scan, gap analysis, evidence review, and consensus generation.
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 | 0.031 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".