Concerns about falling in people with Mild Cognitive Impairment and dementia: a scoping review of exercise interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Concerns about falling (e.g., low balance confidence) increase fall risk in older populations with balance impairments. Exercise can improve physical limitations associated with falls (e.g., poor balance), which are more prevalent in people with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and dementia. This scoping review aimed to understand exercise interventions targeting concerns about falling in people with MCI and dementia. Methods: Using Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework, 968 search combinations were run across six electronic databases from inception to September 15, 2023. Articles were available in English full text, featured original peer-reviewed research with an intervention study design, targeted people with MCI or dementia with the exercise intervention, and included concerns about falling as an outcome measure. Results: Of the 2,111 articles screened, 27 met the inclusion criteria. Only one article looked at concerns about falling as a primary outcome; in the remaining studies, concerns about falling were a secondary outcome. Multi-modal interventions (i.e., containing more than one type of exercise) were most common, with balance and strength as the most frequently employed exercise types. Secondary results are presented on (i) intervention details, (ii) outcomes and measures for concerns about falling, (iii) participant accommodations, and (iv) components of effective interventions for concerns about falling. Conclusions: There is a lack of focus on concerns about falling experienced by people with MCI and dementia. Although concerns about falling were not the primary outcome of most papers, the results highlight the potential of exercise interventions to help address concerns about falling and other fall risk factors (e.g., balance, cognition) in people with MCI and dementia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".