Impact of Function Focused Care and Physical Activity on Falls in Assisted Living Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There continues to be a belief among nurses, patients, and families that physical activity increases the risk of falling. Purpose The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that controlling for age, function, cognition, medication use, gender, comorbidities, and cognition, residents who are exposed to Function Focused Care for Assisted Living (FFC-AL-EIT) and engage in moderate levels of physical activity would not be more likely to fall. Methods This was a secondary data analysis using data from the first two cohorts of a randomized trial testing FFC-AL-EIT in the United States. Results The study included 381 residents, the majority of whom were female (70%), white (97%), with a mean age of 87.72 (standard deviation = 7.47). Those who engaged in more moderate-intensity physical activity were 1% less likely to fall (odds ratio = .99, p = .03). There was no significant association between exposure to function focused care and falling (odds ratio = 1.58, p = .09). Conclusion There was no indication that those who were exposed to function focused care or those who engaged in moderate-level physical activity were more likely to fall. In fact, engaging in moderate-level physical activity was noted to be slightly protective of falling.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".