Fear of falling among Brazilian and Portuguese older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Falling is the leading cause of physical disability, mortality and social exclusion in older adults. In Brazil and Portugal, falls cause thousands of hospitalisations every year. Fear of falling (FOF) causes loss of confidence in accomplishing daily tasks, restriction in social activities and increased dependence. AIM: To compare the prevalence of FOF between Brazilian and Portuguese community-dwelling older adults and the factors associated with FOF. METHODS: A secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data collected from older adults residing in Brazil (n = 170; M age=70.44 years) and Portugal (n = 170; M age=73.56 years). RESULTS: The prevalence of FOF was significantly higher (p = 0.015) among Portuguese (n = 133, 54.1%) versus Brazilian (n = 113, 45.9%) older adults. FOF among Brazilian older adults was associated with being 76 + years of age and female. Among Portuguese older adults, factors associated with FOF were intake of daily medications, having fallen within the past year, and visual difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of falling is linked with modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Timely assessments of FOF and factors associated with FOF are essential. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Primary care nurses should assess and address FOF in older people with interdisciplinary practitioners.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".