FALL RISK FACTORS IN COMMUNITY-DWELLING OLDER ADULTS: AN UMBRELLA REVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Falls are an imperative public health concern, resulting in disability, mental health challenges, and increased mortality risk. An extensive body of literature has examined falls risk factors; however, it has become challenging to navigate. We summarized systematic reviews examining risk factors for falls among community dwelling older adults. We searched seven databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, Ageline) for systematic or scoping reviews including community-dwelling older adults (≥60 years) and reporting risk factors for falls in prospective studies. Three independent reviewers screened 8,173 records and included 57 reviews. Thirty-three reviews conducted meta-analyses and 24 reported relationships from primary studies. Reviews were published between 2004-2023 and examined patients with stroke (n=2), diabetes (n=2), frailty (n=3), and cognitive impairments (n=3). Types of falls examined included recurrent falls (n=45) and injurious falls (n=18). Reviews reported risk factors across every construct of the WHO’s ICF model; health conditions (n=20 reviews), body structure and function (n=26), activity (n=23), participation (n=11), environmental factors (n=10), and personal factors (n=11). Most commonly conducted meta-analyses included: mobility impairments (demonstrating increased risk across gait, strength, and clinical performance tests, n=12/20), balance impairments (increased risk n=15/16), BMI (null risk n=12/12), frailty (increased risk n=9/10). Heterogeneity of reported effect sizes prohibited the calculation of pooled magnitudes for risk factors. Narrative synthesis results are summarized separately. Physical risk factors for falls are well established and can be addressed through interventions. Findings highlight narrow examination of psychosocial and environmental risk factors for falls in community dwelling older adults, indicating areas for future research.
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 | 0.016 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".