Fear of Falling Avoidance Behaviour, but Not Fall History, Is Associated With Balance and Dynamic Gait Performance in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine relationships among balance confidence, fear of falling (FoF) avoidance behaviour, and high-level balance performance in community-dwelling older adults. Method: Eighty-nine participants (mean age 76 [SD 7] years, 54 females) completed the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, Fear of Falling Avoidance Behavior Questionnaire, Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M), and falls experienced in the past 12 months for this cross-sectional study. Results: Outcome measure (OM) scores did not differ between people who reported a fall and those without a fall. Correlations between all OMs varied from 0.52 to 0.88. FoF avoidance behaviour, but not fall history, was associated with lower scores on all measures. There were no floor or ceiling effects for the performance-based OMs. Conclusions: FoF avoidance behaviour did not differ between community-dwelling older adults with and without a previous fall. Participants who reported FoF avoidance behaviour had poorer balance performance, suggesting clinicians should assess high-level balance performance in older adults who exhibit FoF activity avoidance. Patient-reported OMs may identify older adults who need an assessment of dynamic balance and gait. The CB&M and FGA are appropriate to assess high-level balance in older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".