Assessing the feasibility of an integrated collection of education modules for fall and fracture prevention (iCARE) for healthcare providers in long term care: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Falls and hip fractures are a major health concern among older adults in long term care (LTC) with almost 50% of residents experiencing a fall annually. Hip fractures are one of the most important and frequent fall-related injuries in LTC. There is moderate to strong certainty evidence that multifactorial interventions may reduce the risk of falls and fractures; however, there is little evidence to support its implementation. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility (recruitment rate and adaptations) with a subobjective to understand facilitators to and barriers of implementing the PREVENT (Person-centred Routine Fracture PreEVENTion) model in practice. The model includes a multifactorial intervention on diet, exercise, environmental adaptations, hip protectors, medications (including calcium and vitamin D), and medication reviews to treat residents at high risk of fracture. Our secondary outcomes were to determine if there was a change in knowledge uptake of the guidelines among healthcare providers and in the proportion of fracture prevention prescriptions post-intervention. We conducted a mixed-methods longitudinal cohort study in three LTC homes across southern Ontario. A local champion was selected to help guide the implementation of the model and promote best practices. We reported recruitment rates using descriptive statistics and challenges to implementation using content analysis. We reported changes in knowledge uptake and in the proportion of fracture prevention medications using the McNemar's test. We recruited three LTC homes and identified one local champion for each home. We required two months to identify and train the local champion over three, 1.5-hour train-the-trainer sessions, and the local champion required three months to deliver the intervention to a team of healthcare professionals. We identified several facilitators, barriers, and adaptations to PREVENT. Benefits of the model include easy access to the Fracture Risk Scale (FRS), clear and succinct educational material catered to each healthcare professional, and an accredited Continuing Medical Educational module for physicians and nurses. Challenges included misperceptions between the differences in fall and fracture prevention strategies, fear of perceived side effects associated with fracture prevention medications, and time barriers with completing the audit report. Our study found an increase knowledge uptake of the guidelines and an increase in the proportion of fracture prevention prescriptions post-intervention.
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 | 0.030 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".