MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978180444 · doi:10.3928/00989134-20061001-07

Falls Prevention Training for Community Health Workers: Strategies and Actions for Independent Living (SAIL)

2006· article· en· W2978180444 on OpenAlexaffabout
V Scott, Kristine Votova, Elaine Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChecklistPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Suicide preventionInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthPoison controlGerontologyPhysical therapyNursingEnvironmental healthPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a quasi-experimental study on falls prevention for clients of home support services in British Columbia, Canada. The study tested a nurse-designed multifactorial intervention, delivered by community health workers. The intervention consisted of 1 day of falls surveillance and prevention training for 51 community health workers, followed by 6 months of evidence-based interventions with their clients (n = 70) using a pretested Checklist and Action Plan. Study findings showed a 43% reduction (chi2 = 8.742, p < .01) in falls and a 44% reduction (chi2 = 5.739, p < .05) for fallers (those who fell once or more) from the 6-month preintervention period to postintervention. The proportion of falls resulting in any injury did not decrease; however, fractures were reduced from seven in the 6-month preintervention period to one following the intervention. The results indicate this intervention is an effective and inexpensive falls prevention strategy for frail recipients of home support services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gerontological NursingSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207