MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385244966

Barriers and Facilitators to Older Adults Participating in Fall-Prevention Strategies After Transitioning Home from Acute Hospitalization: A Scoping Review

2020· review· en· W4385244966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tzeng HM, Udoka Okpalauwaekwe, Lyons EJ

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFall preventionGerontologyMedicineAging in placePsychologyMedical emergencySuicide preventionPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Huey-Ming Tzeng,1 Udoka Okpalauwaekwe,2 Elizabeth J Lyons3 1The University of Texas Medical Branch, School of Nursing, Galveston, TX, USA; 2University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 2Z4, Canada; 3University of Texas Medical Branch, Department of Nutrition and Metabolism, School of Health Professions, Galveston, TX, USACorrespondence: Huey-Ming TzengThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, School of Nursing, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX 77555, USATel +1-734-358-0358Email tzenghm@gmail.comPurpose: Approximately, 14% of older adults aged 65 years and over experience a fall within 1 month post-hospital discharge. Adequate self-management may minimize the impact of these falls; however, research is lacking on why some older adults engage in self-management to prevent falls while others do not.Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify barriers and facilitators to older adults participating in fall-prevention strategies after transitioning home from acute hospitalization. Eligibility criteria were peer-reviewed journal articles published during 2009– 2019 which were written in English and contained any of the following keywords or their synonyms: “fall-prevention,” “older adults,” “post-discharge” and “transition care.” We systematically and selectively summarized the findings of these articles using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Seven bibliographic databases were searched: PubMed/MEDLINE, ERIC, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We used the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model of health behavior change as a framework to guide the content, thematic analysis, and descriptive results.Results: Seventeen articles were finally selected. The most frequently mentioned barriers and facilitators for each COM-B dimension differed. Motivation factors include such as older adults lacking inner drive and self-denial of being at risk for falls (barriers) and following-up with older adults and correcting inaccurate perceptions of falls and fall-prevention strategies (facilitators).Conclusion: This scoping review revealed gaps and future research areas in fall prevention relative to behavioral changes. These findings may enable tailoring feasible fall-prevention interventions for older adults after transitioning home from acute hospitalization.Keywords: falls, falls with injury, older adults, post-discharge care, transition care, patient-centered care

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.405 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207