MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080405448 · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103230

Reducing fall risk for home care workers with slip resistant winter footwear

2020· article· en· W3080405448 on OpenAlex
Z. Shaghayegh Bagheri, Jose Diaz Beltran, Paul Holyoke, Tilak Dutta

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Ergonomics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlip (aerodynamics)MedicineEngineeringPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Falls on icy surfaces are the leading cause of occupational injuries for workers exposed to outdoor winter conditions. Slip resistant footwear has been shown to reduce the risk of falls for indoor workers but until recently, there was no accepted standard for evaluating the slip resistance of winter footwear on icy surfaces. Our team recently developed a lab-based testing protocol for measuring footwear slip resistance. This protocol, called the Maximum Achievable Angle (MAA) test, measures the steepest ice-covered slope that participants can walk up and down without experiencing a slip in a simulated winter environment. This lab-based protocol has found there is wide variability in the performance of commercially available winter footwear. In particular, we have found that a new generation of footwear that incorporates composite materials in the outsole, performs much better than most other footwear. The objective of this project was to investigate whether the footwear that performed well in our lab-based testing would reduce the risk of slips and/or falls in real-world winter conditions. One hundred and ten home healthcare workers from SE Health were recruited for this study and were asked to report their exposure to icy surfaces along with the numbers of slips and numbers of falls they experienced each week using online surveys over eight weeks in the winter. Fifty participants (the intervention group) were provided winter footwear that were among the best performing in the MAA test. The remaining sixty participants (the control group) wore their own footwear for the duration of the study. A total of 563 slips and 36 falls were reported over the eight-week data collection period. The intervention group consistently reported fewer slips (127 vs 436) and fewer falls (6 vs 30) compared to the control group. We found the slip rate in the intervention group was between 68.0% and 68.7% lower than the control group. Similarly, the fall rate was between 78.5% and 81.5% lower in the intervention group compared to the control group. These findings demonstrate that footwear that performs well in the MAA test can reduce the risk of both slips and falls in real-world winter conditions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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