Fear of Falls Following an Online Exercise Program for Aging Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who participate in regular exercise tend to report a lower fear of falling; however, it is unknown if this fear can be reduced following an online fall prevention exercise program. The main purpose of this study was to test if offering a peer-led fall prevention exercise program online reduced the fear of falling and if this potential improvement was greater than when the program was offered in person. The secondary objectives were to describe participants’ characteristics when participating online, the rate of falls and the context in which falls occur. A total of 85 adults aged 69.0 ± 7.8 years participated in the program offered online ( n = 44) and in-person ( n = 41). No significant differences in fear of falling before and after participation in the program were reported for either group: online (20.7 ± 5.1–21.8 ± 5.5) and in-person (20.6 ± 5.1–21.2 ± 5.3). Online participants reported a greater proportion of falls ( n = 9; 20.5% vs. n = 4; 9.8%; p = .14), mostly occurring outdoors ( n = 7) (77.8). A properly designed study is needed to test if the rate of falls is greater when an exercise program is offered online.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".