The Effect of a Standing Intervention on Falls in Long Term Care: a Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Older adults in long term care (LTC) spend over 90% of their day engaging in sedentary behaviour. Sedentary behaviour may exacerbate functional decline and frailty, increasing the risk for falls. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of a 22-week standing intervention on falls among LTC residents at 12-month follow-up. Methods: This was a planned secondary analysis of the Stand if You Can randomized controlled trial. The original trial randomized 95 participants (n = 47 control; n = 48 intervention) to either a sitting control or a supervised standing intervention group (100 minutes/week) for 22 weeks. Falls data were available to be collected over 12 months post-intervention for 89 participants. The primary outcome was a hazard of fall (Yes/No) during the 12-month follow-up period. Results: A total of 89 participants (average age 86 years ± 8.05; 71.9% female) were followed for 12-months post-intervention. Participants in the intervention group (n=44) had a significantly greater hazard ratio of falls (2.01; 95% CI = 1.11 to 3.63) than the control group (n=45) when accounting for the history of falls, frailty status, cognition level, and sex. Conclusion: Participants who received a standing intervention over 22 weeks were twice as likely to fall 12 months after the intervention compared with the control group. However, the prevalence of falls did not surpass what would be typically observed in LTC facilities. It is imperative that future studies describe in detail the context in which falls happen and collect more characteristics of participants in the follow-up period to truly understand the association between standing more and the risk of falls.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".