Aspectos multidimensionais relacionados ao risco de queda em pessoas idosas da comunidade: estudo transversal realizado na atenção primária à saúde brasileira
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Falls represent a significant public health problem, particularly among the elderly population, affecting approximately 30% of this group and resulting in physical disabilities, reduced autonomy, and an impact on Quality of Life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the association between the risk of falls and socio-economic and multidimensional health aspects in elderly individuals receiving Primary Health Care (PHC) in Brazil. An observational, cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach was conducted with 257 elderly individuals (≥60 years) enrolled in the PHC system in the municipality of Santa Cruz, RN, Brazil. Data were collected through in-person interviews, using validated instruments such as the Fall Risk Score (FRS) to assess the risk of falls and, for evaluating multidimensional aspects: the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), the Barthel Index, and the Lawton & Brody Scale. The Elderly Health Booklet was used to collect sociodemographic data. Statistical analysis included Pearson's chi-square test, the Mann-Whitney test, and Spearman's correlation coefficient. The results indicated that 39.7% of participants had some level of fall risk, with this risk being more prevalent among elderly individuals with nutritional deficiencies, frailty, and impaired cognition. Factors such as preserved cognition, absence of frailty, and functional independence were identified as protective against the risk of falls. Furthermore, elderly individuals with a higher fall risk exhibited worse QoL, especially in the physical and functional domains. It was concluded that multidimensional aspects, such as nutrition, cognition, and functionality, played a central role in the fall risk of the sample. These findings reinforce the need for more specific protocols in PHC, including interventions aimed at improving these aspects, such as nutritional support, functional strengthening, and cognitive stimulation. Future studies should explore causal relationships through longitudinal approaches to enhance the applicability of the results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".