Prevalence, severity, associated factors and assessment of risk for falls among elderly in Sri Lanka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Falls among the elderly is a significant global health problem. Therefore, we aimed to study the prevalence, severity, and factors associated with falls among community-dwelling elders and assess their future risk of falls.Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 128 residents aged ≥65 years from a housing complex in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Participants were selected using systematic sampling. Data were obtained using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Disability, cognition and future falls risk were assessed using the modified Rankin scale (mRS), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool and the QuickScreen (QS) tool, respectively.Results: Among the participants, 54.7% were aged 65-74 years and 55.5%were women. Prevalence of falls was 44.5% in the last five years and 17.2% in the last one year. Of those who fell, 2.4% had significant disability (mRS≥3) and 63.2% required medical attention. Cognitive impairment (MoCA<26/30) was found among 84.4%. Diabetes (36.7%), hypertension (60.9%), backache (59.4%), obesity (65.6%), impaired mobility and vision impairment (71.9%) were the identified biological risk factors. Slippery floors (38.3%) were the commonest environmental risk factor. Among the participants 35.9% were taking >3 types of medications. In the mobility tests, 66.4% failed the alternate step test, 64.1% failed the sit to stand test while 25% failed the near tandem test. Based on the QS scores, the fall risk in the ensuing 12 months was found to be high in seven participants (5.5%), moderate in 86 (67.1%) and low in 35 (27.3%).Conclusion: Falls among elderly were common and was associated with significant morbidity. Many elders possessed more than one risk factor for falls and the future falls risk was found to be moderate to high.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".