Hipwatch: osteoporosis investigation and treatment after a hip fracture : a 6-month randomized controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
1) Objective: To test a novel Patient Empowerment and Physician Alerting (PEPA) intervention that seeks to improve the proportion of older adults who are diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis after hip fracture. 2) Methods: a) Design: Six-month randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized either to the PEPA group (intervention) or the ’usual-care’ group (control). b) Participants and Setting: Forty-eight women and men aged 60 years and older who were admitted to Vancouver General Hospital for a fall-related hip fracture. c) Measurements: The Diagnosis and Management Questionnaire (DMQ) was administered to all participants to determine the initiation of investigation and treatment of osteoporosis. The responses were validated in part by physician report obtained for one fourth of the participants. d) Statistical Analyses: I compared the difference between the two experimental groups in the number of individuals who received one or more osteoporosis specific ’best practices’ within 6 months after their hip fracture using the chi-square test. The alpha level was set at p < 0.05. 3) Results: Of the 78 individuals who were eligible for this study, 48 agreed to participate. Among these participants, I found a significant difference between the intervention and the control group in the number of individuals who received one or more osteoporosis ’best practices’ after their hip fracture (p < 0.01). In the PEPA group, 54% (p < 0.01) were prescribed bisphosphonate therapy, 29% (p < 0.01) were investigated by a bone mineral density test, 39% were initiated on Calcium and Vitamin D (p = 0.32) and 32% (p < 0.01) were recommended exercise within 6 months after experiencing a fragility hip fracture. In contrast, in the usual-care group 0% were prescribed bisphosphonate therapy, 0% were investigated by a bone mineral density test, 30% were initiated on Calcium and Vitamin D and 0% were recommended exercise within 6 months after experiencing a fragility hip fracture. 4) Summary and Conclusions: This cohort of individuals who fractured their hip did not receive guideline care unless recommended by the PEPA intervention letters sent to the participant and delivered to the primary care physician. Patients who sustain a low-trauma hip fracture have osteoporosis but did not routinely receive recommended osteoporosis ’best practice’ care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».