MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404690093 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0003096

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

2024· article· en· W4404690093 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabel B. Rodrigues, George Ioannidis, Lauren Kane, Loretta M. Hillier, Jonathan D. Adachi, George Heckman, John P. Hirdes, Jayna Holroyd‐Leduc, Susan Jaglal, Sharon Kaasalainen, Sharon Marr, Caitlin McArthur, Sharon E. Straus, Jean‐Éric Tarride, Momina Abbas, Andrew P. Costa, Arthur Lau, Lehana Thabane, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpactUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of WaterlooLawson Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
FundersInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchAmgenMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAGE-WELLMcMaster Institute for Research on Aging, McMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsFall preventionTerm (time)Health careMedicineGerontologyNursingMedical emergencySuicide preventionPoison controlPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207