The impact of falls and fear of falling on participation, autonomy, and life satisfaction among individuals with spinal cord injury: A brief report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Qualitative research suggests that falls can have a negative psychosocial impact on the lives of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, it is unclear whether these qualitative findings are supported by quantitative psychosocial metrics. This paper examines whether falling and/or having a fear of falling impacts participation, autonomy, and life satisfaction among individuals with SCI.Methods Falls and fear of falling were tracked over six months using a survey and phone check-ins conducted approximately every three to four weeks. The Life Satisfaction 9 and Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaires were administered at baseline and after six months. Responses on the questionnaires were statistically compared between fallers and non-fallers as well as participants with and without a fear of falling during the tracking period.Findings Of the 65 community-dwelling adults with chronic SCI, 38 were categorized as fallers (aged 54.29 ± 13.73, 19.55 ± 14.20 years post-SCI, AIS A-D) and 27 were non-fallers (aged 57.78 ± 12.21, 17.93 ± 17.24 years post-SCI, AIS A-D). Our results revealed no significant differences between fallers and non-fallers in their perceived participation, autonomy, or life satisfaction at baseline or after six months. At the last check-in, 34 participants denied a fear of falling, while 31 had a fear of falling. Perceived autonomy outdoors (P=0.02), total life satisfaction (P=0.04), satisfaction with life as a whole (P=0.00) and self-care (P=0.01) differed between participants with and without a fear of falling after six months.Conclusion Fear of falling, rather than falls, may impact participation, autonomy, and life satisfaction in the SCI population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".