Fear of Falling Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Heart Disease: Findings from an International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults with heart disease (HD) are more likely to report a higher prevalence of falls compared to those without HD. A knowledge gap currently exists regarding the factors associated with fear of falling (FOF) among older adults with HD. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate FOF and identify factors associated with FOF among older adults with HD. METHODS: Data came from a secondary analysis of the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS) baseline (2012) data. FOF was measured using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I). Stepwise linear regression was used to identify factors associated with FOF. RESULTS: A total of 429 participants identified themselves as having heart disease diagnosed by their physician (mean age 69.5 ± 2.9). Older adults with HD reported on average (25.6) higher FOF than those without HD. For older adults with HD, FES-I increased significantly by 1.3, 1.0, and 0.6 points, when the Short Physical Performance Battery, the Leganes Cognitive Test, and QOL total scores decreased by one point. FES-I also significantly increased by 3.2 when income was insufficient compared to sufficient or very sufficient income. DISCUSSION: FOF is multifactorial, and our findings provide a base for developing future management rehabilitation intervention programs aimed at decreasing FOF among older adults with HD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".