Association Between Fear of Falling and Frailty in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Larissa Franciny de Souza,1 Jaquelini Betta Canever,1 Bruno de Souza Moreira,2 Ana Lúcia Danielewicz,1 Núbia Carelli Pereira de Avelar1 1Laboratory of Aging, Resources and Rheumatology, Department of Health Sciences, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Araranguá, Santa Catarina, Brazil; 2René Rachou Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz Minas), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, BrazilCorrespondence: Bruno de Souza MoreiraRené Rachou Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz Minas), Augusto de Lima Avenue 1715, Barro Preto, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 30190-002, Brazil, Tel +55 31 3349-7707, Email brunosouzamoreira@gmail.comBackground/Objective: Fear of falling (FoF) and frailty are common problems in older adults. FoF can lead to self-imposed restriction of activities and then further decline in physical capacities that predispose older adults to frailty. Evaluating the association of these two geriatric syndromes may be the first step for understanding their complex relationship and might ultimately lead to establishing therapeutic goals and guiding treatments for older adults with frailty. This systematic review was conducted to provide evidence regarding the association between FoF and frailty.Methods: All the articles that provided information on the association between FoF and frailty were selected from PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and EMBASE in search of relevant papers. Articles reporting information on the association between FoF (exposure) and frailty (outcome), with older adults (age ⥠60 years) living in the community (ie, living either at home or in places of residence that do not provide nursing care or rehabilitation) were included. Only original articles with observational design (cross-sectional or longitudinal/cohort) were included. The methodological quality of included articles was evaluated independently by the two assessors through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, respectively.Results: The initial searches found 4,342 articles, of which 10 articles were included in this review: 7 cross-sectional and 2 longitudinal studies, and 1 study with cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. The total sample was composed of 6,294 community-dwelling older adults (61.8% women). Among the longitudinal studies, adjusted odds ratios ranged from 1.18 (95% CI = 1.02; 1.36) to 9.87 (95% CI = 5.22; 18.68), while the adjusted odds ratios of the cross-sectional studies ranged from 1.04 (95% CI = 1.02; 1.07) to 7.16 (95% CI = 2.34; 21.89).Conclusion: FoF increases the risk of frailty in community-dwelling older adults. The knowledge of this association is of utmost importance in clinical practice, since it can help health professionals in the development of rehabilitation, prevention, and health promotion protocols. In addition, these findings can contribute to the development of public health policies and actions aimed at reducing the FoF and consequently the frailty.Prospero: CRD42021276775.Keywords: fear of falling, frailty, older adults, systematic review, geriatric syndromes
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".