A Case Management Program at Home to Reduce Fall Risk in Older Adults (the MAGIC Study): Protocol for a Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individual case management programs may be particularly effective in reducing fall risk as they can better identify barriers and facilitators to health recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocol for a single-blind, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that aims to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home-based multifactorial program targeting fall risk factors among people aged 60 years and over who have fallen at least twice in the past 12 months (the MAGIC trial). METHODS: Older people with a history of at least 2 falls in the last year will be divided into 2 groups. The intervention group will receive case management at home for reducing the risk of falls, including a multidimensional assessment, explanation of fall risk factors, and elaboration and monitoring of an individualized intervention plan based on the identified fall risk factors, personal preferences, and available resources. The control group will be monitored once a month. Assessments (clinical data, fall risk awareness, physical and mental factors, safety at home, feet and shoes, and risk and rate of falls) will be carried out at baseline, after 16 weeks of the intervention, and at the posttrial 6-week and 1-year follow-up. After 16 weeks of the intervention, satisfaction and adherence to the intervention will also be assessed. Economic health will be evaluated for the period up to the posttrial 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Data collection started in April 2021, and we expected to end recruitment in December 2021. This case management program will address multifactorial assessments using validated tools and the implementation of individualized intervention plans focused on reducing fall risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: This trial may provide reliable and valuable information about the effectiveness of case management for increasing fall risk awareness and reducing fall risk in older people. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBec) RBR-3t85fd; https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-3t85fd. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34796.
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 | 0.056 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.016 |
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".