The Potential for Effect of a Six-Week Training Program for Gait Aid Use in Older People with Dementia with Unsteadiness of Gait: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the potential for effect of a six-week gait aid training program for people with dementia on spatiotemporal gait outcomes, perception of use, and falls with gait aid use. The program utilised four 30-min physiotherapy home visits, scheduled at weeks 1/2/3/6, and was enhanced by carer-supervised practice. Falls and the physiotherapist's clinical judgement of participants achieving safe gait aid use during and after the program were described. Perception ratings at each visit were measured using Likert scales which, along with the spatiotemporal outcomes using the gait aid (Time-Up-and-Go-Test, 4-m-walk-test, Figure-of-8-Walk-Test with/without a cognitive task) at weeks 1 and 6, and at weeks 6 and 12 (6-week post-program), were examined with ordinal logistic regression analyses. Twenty-four community-dwelling older people with dementia and their carers participated. Twenty-one (87.5%) older people achieved safe gait aid use. Twenty falls occurred, and only one faller was using their gait aid when they fell. Walking speed, step length, and cadence significantly improved when walking with the gait aid at week 6 compared with week 1. No significant improvements in spatiotemporal outcomes were retained at week 12. Physiotherapists were more likely to agree that gait aid use had improved walking safety among older people with dementia with subsequent training visits. Larger studies of the gait aid training program are needed for this clinical group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".