A qualitative photo-elicitation study exploring the impact of falls and fall risk on individuals with subacute spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals living with chronic spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) are at an increased risk of falling. However, little is known about the impact of falls and fall risk in the subacute phase of SCI/D, despite this being a time when fall prevention initiatives are delivered. Hence, we explored the impact of falls and fall risk in individuals with subacute SCI/D as they transitioned from inpatient rehabilitation to community living. METHODS: This qualitative photo-elicitation study used an inductive thematic analysis. Eight individuals (7 male) undergoing inpatient rehabilitation at a Canadian tertiary rehabilitation hospital due to a new SCI/D participated. Six months following discharge, photo-elicitation interviewing was used to understand the impact of falls and fall risk. Over 7-14 days, participants completed a photo-assignment that involved taking photographs in response to questions, such as what increases/decreases your likelihood of falling? A semi-structured interview followed, in which participants described their photographs and discussed their experiences with falls, fall risk and fall prevention training. RESULTS: Four themes were identified. 1) Risk factors and strategies identified through lived experience. Participants discovered their fall risk factors and fall prevention strategies through "trial and error". 2) Influences on the individual's perception of their fall risk. Prior experience with falls, including falls experienced by themselves as well as friends and family, influenced their perception of fall risk. 3) Experiencing life differently due to increased fall risk. A high fall risk reduced participation, increased negative emotions and decreased independence and quality of life. 4) Falls training in rehabilitation can be improved. Prior experiences with falls training varied; however, participants expressed a desire for comprehensive and individualized training. CONCLUSION: Although participants' experiences with falls and fall prevention varied, falls and the risk of falling can have a significant impact on the first year of living with a SCI/D.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".