Scoping Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Fall Risk Screening and Assessment in Older Adults across the Care Continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the rising numbers of older adults in Canada experiencing falls, evidence-based identification of fall risks and plans for prevention across the continuum of care is a significant priority for health care providers. A scoping review was conducted to synthesize published international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations for fall risk screening and assessment in older adults (defined as 65 years of age and older). Of the 22 CPGs, 6 pertained to multiple settings, 9 pertained to community-dwelling older adults only, 2 each pertained to acute care and long-term care settings only, and 3 did not specify setting. Two criteria, prior fall history and gait and balance abnormalities, were applied either independently or sequentially in 19 CPG fall risk screening algorithms. Fall risk assessment components were more varied across CPGs but commonly included: detailed fall history; detailed evaluation of gait, balance, and/or mobility; medication review; vision; and environmental hazards assessment. Despite these similarities, more work is needed to streamline assessment approaches for heterogeneous and complex older adult populations across the care continuum. Support is also needed for sustainable implementation of CPGs in order to improve health outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.075 | 0.299 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".