Global evidence on falls and subsequent social isolation in older adults: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Falls are a leading cause of injury-related hospitalizations among adults aged 65 years and older and may result in social isolation. OBJECTIVE: To summarise evidence on falls and subsequent social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults through a scoping review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were eligible for inclusion if the population had a mean age of 60 years or older, they examined falls and subsequent social isolation, loneliness, fear of falling or risk factors and were primary studies (eg, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and qualitative). SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Ageline and grey literature from inception until 11 January 2021. CHARTING METHODS: A screening and charting form was developed and pilot-tested. Subsequently, two reviewers screened citations and full-text articles, and charted the evidence. RESULTS: After screening 4993 citations and 304 full-text articles, 39 studies were included in this review. Participants had a history of falling (range: 11% to 100%). Most studies were conducted in Europe (44%) and North America (33%) and were of the cross-sectional study design (66.7%), in the community (79%). Studies utilised 15 different scales. Six studies examined risk factors for social isolation and activity restriction associated with fear of falling. Six studies reported mental health outcomes related to falls and subsequent social isolation. CONCLUSIONS: Consistency in outcome measurement is recommended, as multiple outcomes were used across the included studies. Further research is warranted in this area, given the ageing population and the importance of falls and social isolation to the health of older adults. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/2R8HM.
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 | 0.017 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".