Physical Function and Fear of Falling After Hip Fracture Rehabilitation in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between physical function and fall-related self-efficacy in older patients with a hip fracture who are undergoing an intensive rehabilitation program. DESIGN: We used a prospective cohort study over 12 mo to determine the effect of a specialized hip fracture rehabilitation program in a geriatric hospital on physical function and fear of falling. Fifty-six patients were admitted consecutively from acute care. Physical function was assessed using the Functional Independence Measure, and fall-related self-efficacy was measured using two scales: the Falls-Efficacy scale and the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence scale. We also used the Vitality scale to measure quality of life. All measures, represented by change scores, were determined at the beginning and end of the patients' rehabilitation programs. RESULTS: Significant improvement in physical function and fall self-efficacy was observed. The Vitality scale was also improved after rehabilitation. The Falls-Efficacy scale appeared to be more sensitive to change than the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence scale, whereas no correlation was found between changes in the fall-related self-efficacy measures and the Functional Independence Measure. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may represent a discrepancy between attention of the rehabilitation program on functional outcomes and less emphasis on confidence building behaviors. Restrictions in function from a fear of falling may negate any gains made through rehabilitation, and this could limit the long-term success of these programs and patient outcomes after hip fracture.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".