Efficacy of the Stroll Safe Outdoor Fall Prevention Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Outdoor falls can negatively affect the independence and well-being of community-dwelling older adults. Although there is some overlap, there are also differences in risk factors for indoor and outdoor falls. There are no existing community-based fall prevention programs that specifically target outdoor fall prevention. To fill this gap, the Stroll Safe program was developed. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial design was used with randomization at the site level. Participants (N = 86) were aged 60 and older, with a history of an outdoor fall or who had a fear of falling outdoors. Eight naturally occurring retirement community program sites were randomly assigned to the treatment or wait list control group. Outcome measures included the Outdoor Falls Questionnaire, the Falls Behavioral Scale for the Older Person, and the Falls Efficacy Scale-International to examine knowledge of risks, safe strategy use, protective behaviors, and fear of falling. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare change scores between groups with covariates included for any initial differences between groups. A linear mixed model was also conducted to account for any clustering effects. RESULTS: Significant differences (ps < .05) were found between groups for knowledge of outdoor fall risks and safe strategy use. Effect sizes were large (Cohen's d = 1.2-1.9). Results were retained at 6-week follow-up. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Stroll Safe is effective in improving knowledge of outdoor fall risks and increasing safe strategy use for community mobility. Stroll Safe fills a gap in outdoor fall prevention programs. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT03624777.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".