The Value of Routinely Collected Data in Evaluating Home Assessment and Modification Interventions to Prevent Falls in Older People: Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Falls in older people commonly occur at home. Home assessment and modification (HAM) interventions can be effective in reducing falls; however, there are some concerns over the validity of evaluation findings. Routinely collected data could improve the quality of HAM evaluations and strengthen their evidence base. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the evidence of the use of routinely collected data in the evaluations of HAM interventions. METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception until January 31, 2020: PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL, OpenGrey, CENTRAL, LILACS, and Web of Knowledge. Eligible studies were those evaluating HAMs designed to reduce falls involving participants aged 60 years or more. We included study protocols and full reports. Bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: A total of 7 eligible studies were identified in 8 papers. Government organizations provided the majority of data across studies, with health care providers and third-sector organizations also providing data. Studies used a range of demographic, clinical and health, and administrative data. The purpose of using routinely collected data spanned recruiting and creating a sample, stratification, generating independent variables or covariates, and measuring key study-related outcomes. Nonhome-based modification interventions (eg, in nursing homes) using routinely collected data were not included in this study. We included two protocols, which meant that the results of those studies were not available. MeSH headings were excluded from the PubMed search because of a reduction in specificity. This means that some studies that met the inclusion criteria may not have been identified. CONCLUSIONS: Routine data can be used successfully in many aspects of HAM evaluations and can reduce biases and improve other important design considerations. However, the use of these data in these studies is currently not widespread. There are a number of governance barriers to be overcome to allow these types of linkage and to ensure that the use of routinely collected data in evaluations of HAM interventions is exploited to its full potential.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".