Proportion of participants meeting falls prevention guidelines in an evidence-based community-based exercise program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although exercise is strongly recommended to prevent falls in older adults (exercise that challenges balance, performed three hours per week on an ongoing basis), few community-based programs meet these recommendations. Assess the proportion of participants meeting fall prevention exercise recommendations in a community-based program and explore how adherence varies by individual characteristics and participation mode (in-person, tele-exercise, or hybrid). A cross-sectional analysis of Zoomers in Balance participants who completed an online questionnaire about their demographic data, mode of participation, and their perceived balance intensity in a 12-week series using the Balance Intensity Scale (1-no effort at all to 5-maximal effort). Weekly attendance was self-reported after each 12-week series, and ongoing participation was assessed using registration data over one year. The average perceived balance intensity was 3.2 ± 0.7 (range 1–5), the average attendance was 1.3 ± 0.6 h/week (range 0.2–4.2), and participants attended an average of 3.4 ± 0.6 series/year (range 2–4). None of the participants met all three guidelines. The most fulfilled recommendation was ongoing participation (43%), which was greater in the hybrid ( B = 2.68; p < 0.001) and tele-exercise ( B = 1.28; p < 0.001) groups compared with the in-person mode. In addition, the mode of participation was associated with meeting one or more guidelines (χ 2 = 23.05; p < 0.001), without any significant difference between modes. Offering hybrid participation options could lead to greater adherence to evidence-based guidelines, thereby reducing the risk of falls. The proportion of participants meeting fall prevention guidelines in a community-based program is low, with a trend indicating that hybrid options are more effective.
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 | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".