MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401793424 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afae186

Factors influencing older adult community fall prevention exercise implementation: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4401793424 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathryn M. Sibley, Brenda J. Tittlemier, Faith Olarinde, Brianna Leadbetter, Danielle R Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineFall preventionBalance (ability)GerontologyIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyInjury preventionPoison controlNursingMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise that challenges balance is the most effective fall prevention intervention in community-dwelling older adults. Identifying factors influencing implementation of community fall prevention exercise programs is a critical step in developing strategies to support program delivery. OBJECTIVE: To identify implementation facilitators, barriers, and details reported in peer-reviewed publications on community fall prevention exercise for older adults. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We searched multiple databases up to July 2023 for English-language publications that reported facilitators and/or barriers to implementing an evidence-based fall prevention exercise program in adults aged 50+ years living independently. At least two reviewers independently identified publications and extracted article, implementation, and exercise program characteristics and coded barriers and facilitators using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: We included 22 publications between 2001 and July 2023 that reported factors influencing implementation of 10 exercise programs. 293 factors were reported: 183 facilitators, 91 barriers, 6 described as both a facilitator and barrier, and 13 unspecified factors. Factors represented 33 CFIR constructs across all five CFIR domains: implementation inner setting (n = 95 factors); innovation (exercise program) characteristics (n = 84); individuals involved (n = 54); implementation process (n = 40) and outer setting (n = 20). Eight publications reported implementation strategies used; 6 reported using a conceptual framework; and 13 reported implementation outcomes. CONCLUSION: The high number of factors reflects the complexity of fall prevention exercise implementation. The low reporting of implementation strategies, frameworks and outcomes highlight the ongoing need for work to implement and sustain community fall prevention exercise programs.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0210.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207