Implementation of falls risk evaluation at one-year after total hip arthroplasty: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has demonstrated an increased risk of falls after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Yet, people's knowledge on falls risk factors and how falls prevention strategies are being used after THA have not been examined. If a person's knowledge of falls and self-efficacy about falls prevention strategies is low this would indicate a pressing need for interventions to lessen risk. The study objectives were: 1) to determine the falls knowledge and what fall prevention strategies people used after (THA) and 2) to determine the outcomes of a falls risk assessment at 12-months after unilateral THA. METHODS: Overall, 108 people completed the Falls Risk for Older People - Community Setting (FROP-Com) scale, a falls questionnaire (covered occurrence of falls, knowledge on falls risk factors, falls prevention strategies implemented after THA surgery), 6-m Walk Test (6mWT), 30-Second Chair Stand Test (30CST), Timed-up and Go (TUG) Test, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC). RESULTS: Twenty-five (23.2%) people fell at least once in the 12 months after THA. Scores on the FROP-Com ranged from 2-20 with an average of 8.2 ± 3.6 indicating a mild falls risk. The importance of falling compared to other health concerns was rated as moderate to high (6.8 ± 2.9) and the majority of participants (n = 98, 90.7%) believed falls can be prevented after THA. Total scores on the ABC scale ranged from 30.6% to 100.0% with an average score of 84.4 ± 15.5%, indicating high function. Only 47 people (43.5%) reported receiving falls prevention education. A total of 101 falls prevention strategies were completed by 67 people (62%), the most common strategy was environmental modifications (e.g., installation of grab bars) at 37.4%, while exercise was mentioned by only 2%. The majority of people had functional deficits in 30CST (62%) and TUG (76.9%) at 12-months after unilateral THA. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a quarter of the sample had experienced a fall in the 12-months after THA and functional deficits were common. The majority of the sample had proactively implemented falls prevention strategies after the surgery. Yet importantly, people after THA had limited exposure to falls prevention education and implemented a limited range of prevention strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".