Assessment of Implementation Outcomes of a Peer-Led Program Targeting Fear of Falling Among Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study examined the implementation outcomes (program reach, fidelity, adaptations, responsiveness) of a peer-led program for older adults with fear of falling — Vivre en Équilibre (VEE). Method: VEE was implemented in six independent-living residences for older adults in Quebec (Canada) as part of an effectiveness study. Implementation outcomes were documented using attendance sheets, peer leaders’ logbooks, observation sheets, and phone-administered questionnaires. Qualitative interviews were also conducted with peer leaders, activity coordinators of residences, and a subsample of program participants. Results: The program reached 71 participants who generally corresponded to the program’s target population. Peer leaders delivered the program with moderate to high fidelity but adapted some elements. Responsiveness was good, as reflected by a high attendance rate (91%) and respondents’ satisfaction levels. Conclusion: Findings revealed that VEE was well implemented, suggesting that it can be successfully delivered by peer leaders.
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) | 0.001 | 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".