Involvement of Informal Caregivers in Preventing Falls in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of falls and related injuries is double in older adults with cognitive impairment compared with cognitively healthy older adults. A growing body of literature shows that falls prevention interventions in the cognitively impaired are difficult to implement and that the feasibility and adherence to interventions depend on a number of factors including informal caregiver involvement. However, no systematic review exists on the topic. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to determine whether involvement of informal caregivers can reduce falls in older adults with cognitive impairment. METHODS: Rapid review following Cochrane collaboration guidelines. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials were identified involving 2,202 participants. We identified the following areas where informal caregiving may have an important role in fall prevention in older adults with cognitive impairment: 1) enhancing adherence to the exercise program; 2) identifying and recording falls incidents and circumstances; 3) identifying and modifying possible environmental falls risk factors inside patient's home; and 4) playing an active role in modifying lifestyle in terms of diet/nutrition, limiting antipsychotics, and avoiding movements risking falls. However, informal caregiver involvement was identified as an incidental finding in these studies and the level of evidence ranged from low to moderate. CONCLUSION: Informal caregiver involvement in planning and delivering interventions to reduce falls has been found to increase the adherence of individuals with cognitive impairment in falls prevention programs. Future research should address whether involvement of informal caregivers may improve efficacy of prevention programs by reducing the number of falls as a primary outcome.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".