Does concern about falling predict future falls in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2022 World Falls Guidelines recommend assessing concerns (or 'fears') about falling in multifactorial fall risk assessments. However, the evidence base for this recommendation is limited. This review evaluated the evidence for concerns about falling as an independent predictor of future falls, applying the Bradford Hill criteria for causality. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42023387212). MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and PsycINFO were searched for studies examining associations between baseline concerns about falling and future falls in older adults (minimum 6-month follow-up). Meta-analyses examined associations between concerns about falling and future falls. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies, and evidence certainty was rated with GRADE. RESULTS: About 53 studies, comprising 75,076 participants, were included. Meta-analysis showed significant independent association between baseline concerns and future falls when using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International to assess concerns (full scale version, pooled OR = 1.03 [95% CI = 1.02-1.05] per 1-point increase; short scale version, pooled OR = 1.08 [95% CI = 1.05-1.11]). Significant associations were also observed when using single-item measures of concerns (pooled OR = 1.60 [95% CI = 1.36-1.89] for high vs. low concerns). In contrast, balance confidence (Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale) did not predict future falls (pooled OR = 0.97 [95% CI = 0.93-1.01]). Despite 26 studies rated as poor quality, associations were consistent across studies of different quality. The overall certainty of the evidence was rated as moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline concern about falling is a clear predictor of future falls in older adults, supporting its inclusion in fall risk assessments. Regular assessment of concerns about falling, along with targeted interventions, could help reduce the risk of falls in older adults.
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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".