Injuries from falls by older adults in long-term care captured on video: Prevalence of impacts and injuries to body parts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Falls are the leading cause of injuries in older adults. However, most falls in older adults do not cause serious injury, suggesting that older adults may fall in a manner that reduces the likelihood of impact to body sites that are most vulnerable to injury. In this observational study of falls in long-term care (LTC), we tested whether body parts differed in their probability of impact and injury. METHODS: We recorded and analyzed videos of 2388 falls by 658 LTC residents (mean age 84.0 (SD = 8.1); 56.4% female). We used Linear Mixed Models to test for differences between body parts in the probability of impact and injury, and injury when impacts occurred. RESULTS: Injuries were reported in 38.2% of falls, and 85.9% of injuries involved direct impact to the injured body part. Impact occurred most often to the hip/pelvis (probability (standard error) = 0.95 (0.01); p < .001 relative to other body parts), and least often to the head (0.35 (0.01)). Conversely, injury occurred most often to the head (p < .001 relative to other body parts). The probability of injury when impacts occurred was 0.40 (0.01) for the head, and 0.11 or less for all other body parts. CONCLUSION: Our results help to explain why most falls by older adults in LTC do not cause serious injury: residents land on body parts that are the most resilient to injury. The high susceptibility of the head to injury reinforces the need to enhance upper limb protective responses for fall arrest. The dominant role of direct impact as the mechanism of injury supports approaches to attenuate impact forces through strategies like protective clothing and compliant flooring.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".