European position paper on polypharmacy and fall-risk-increasing drugs recommendations in the World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management: implications and implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Falls prevention and management in older adults is a critical global challenge. One of the key risk factors for falls is the use of certain medications. Therefore, to prevent medication-related falls, the following is recommended in the recent World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management: (1) assess for fall history and the risk of falls before prescribing potential fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs), (2) use a validated, structured screening and assessment tool to identify FRIDs when performing a medication review, (3) include medication review and appropriate deprescribing of FRIDs as a part of the multifactorial falls prevention intervention, and (4) in long-term care residents, if multifactorial intervention cannot be conducted due to limited resources, the falls prevention strategy should still always include deprescribing of FRIDs.In the present statement paper, the working group on medication-related falls of the World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management, in collaboration with the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) Task and Finish group on FRIDs, outlines its position on how to implement and execute these recommendations in clinical practice.Preferably, the medication review should be conducted as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment to produce a personalized and patient-centered assessment. Furthermore, the major pitfall of the published intervention studies so far is the suboptimal implementation of medication review and deprescribing. For the future, it is important to focus on gaining which elements determine successful implementation and apply the concepts of implementation science to decrease the gap between research and practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".