PW 1816 Assessment of knowledge retention of evidence-informed falls prevention messaging among older adults in british columbia (BC), canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In BC, the population of adults over 65 years of age is growing rapidly. The risk of injurious falls increases with age, resulting in a major threat to the quality of life of older adults. Fall-related injuries are the leading cause of injury-related deaths among seniors (>65 years) in BC, and there are over 13 000 hospitalizations per year, resulting in $485 million in direct healthcare costs. The majority of these falls occur among community living seniors. Public education on the magnitude of the problem, and the fact that falls and injuries are preventable with evidence informed strategies, is important for the implementation and sustained use of these prevention strategies. The FindingBalanceBC website has been providing falls prevention information to citizens across BC for the last 3 years. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the level of knowledge retention of visitors to the Finding Balance BC website, which promotes the Senior Falls Prevention Campaign, for the purposes of quality assurance and program improvement. During the month of November, visitors to the FindingBalanceBC website were invited to participate in the survey and those who expressed their consent were enrolled in the study. A questionnaire assessing knowledge of evidence-informed falls prevention strategies among seniors (exercise, vision check, medication review and home safety) based on the website content was prepared and pre-tested. Participants completed the questionnaire at the 4th week and 10th week following their first visit to the website. Respondent composite scores for each of the fall prevention strategies will be calculated and the respective scores for the 4th week and 10th week will be compared using paired t-tests. Results and policy implications will be presented at the conference.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".