MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391687242 · doi:10.2196/54395

Telemedicine-Based Risk Program to Prevent Falls Among Older Adults: Protocol for a Randomized Quality Improvement Trial

2024· article· en· W4391687242 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David B. Rein, Madeleine E. Hackney, Yara K. Haddad, Farah Sublett, Briana Moreland, Laurie Imhof, Cora Peterson, Jaswinder K. Legha, Janice Mark, Camille P. Vaughan, Theodore M. Johnson, Gwen Bergen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineFall preventionTelemedicinePsychological interventionHealth carePoison controlRisk assessmentProtocol (science)Physical therapyOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionMedical emergencyNursingAlternative medicineSurgeryComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries (STEADI) initiative offers health care providers tools and resources to assist with fall risk screening and multifactorial fall risk assessment and interventions. Its effectiveness has never been evaluated in a randomized trial. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the protocol for the STEADI Options Randomized Quality Improvement Trial (RQIT), which was designed to evaluate the impact on falls and all-cause health expenditures of a telemedicine-based form of STEADI implemented among older adults aged 65 years and older, within a primary care setting. METHODS: STEADI Options was a pragmatic RQIT implemented within a health system comparing a telemedicine version of the STEADI fall risk assessment to the standard of care (SOC). Before screening, we randomized all eligible patients in participating clinics into the STEADI arm or SOC arm based on their scheduled provider. All received the Stay Independent screener (SIS) to determine fall risk. Patients were considered at risk for falls if they scored 4 or more on the SIS or answered affirmatively to any 1 of the 3 key questions within the SIS. Patients screened at risk for falls and randomized to the STEADI arm were offered a registered nurse (RN)-led STEADI assessment through telemedicine; the RN provided assessment results and recommendations to the providers, who were advised to discuss fall-prevention strategies with their patients. Patients screened at risk for falls and randomized to the SOC arm were asked to participate in study data collection only. Data on recruitment, STEADI assessments, use of recommended prevention services, medications, and fall occurrences were collected using electronic health records and patient surveys. Using staff time diaries and administrative records, the study prospectively collected data on STEADI implementation costs and all-cause outpatient and inpatient charges incurred over the year following enrollment. RESULTS: The study enrolled 720 patients (n=307, 42.6% STEADI arm; n=353, 49% SOC arm; and n=60, 8.3% discontinued arm) from September 2020 to December 2021. Follow-up data collection was completed in January 2023. As of February 2024, data analysis is complete, and results are expected to be published by the end of 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The STEADI RQIT evaluates the impact of a telemedicine-based, STEADI-based fall risk assessment on falls and all-cause health expenditures and can provide information on the intervention's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05390736, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05390736. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/54395.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.008

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.468 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→