MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018642263 · doi:10.2196/resprot.3485

Community-Based Rehabilitation Post Hospital Discharge Interventions for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment Following a Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review Protocol

2014· review· en· W2018642263 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Paula M. van Wyk, Charlene H. Chu, Jessica Babineau, Martine Puts, Dina Brooks, Marianne Saragosa, Katherine S. McGilton

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationHip fracturePsychological interventionMedicineCognitionPopulationDeliriumDementiaCognitive rehabilitation therapyGerontologyChecklistPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSystematic reviewMEDLINEPsychologyPsychiatryOsteoporosisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures among older adults remain a public concern. Consequences of a hip fracture include the subsequent decline in function and mobility for the older adult, and an increased burden placed upon their caregivers and the health care system. The consequences may be more challenging if an older adult also has a compromised cognitive reserve. Although rehabilitation programs have proven effective, the best practices and resources required to maintain the gains in function and mobility, to negate diminution of effect, and to enable this patient population to continue living at home are currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to develop a systematic review protocol focused on identifying the evidence and evaluating the effectiveness of post discharge rehabilitation programs for older adults with a cognitive impairment following a hip fracture. METHODS: The search strategy will include a combination of text words and subject headings relating to the concepts of cognitive impairment, dementia, delirium, cognitive reserve, and hip fractures. Searching various databases will identify peer-reviewed journal articles. There will be two independent reviewers who will screen the titles and abstracts to determine which articles comprise a rehabilitation intervention within a community setting prior to being included for a full article review. A data extraction form and an evidence and quality checklist will be used during the full article data analysis and synthesis. It is expected that there will be a paucity of studies that focus on post discharge rehabilitation interventions for older adults with cognitive impairment following a hip fracture, and few studies that use the same or similar outcome measures. However, if possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted on studies that used similar outcome methods. RESULTS: This review will synthesize knowledge focusing on activities to maintain and restore function in older adult patients with cognitive impairment once they have completed their active rehabilitation program and return home. A synthesis of the findings will be conducted to determine which components of the interventions identified were the most advantageous to the patient population. The results will be used to develop a multi-faceted post discharge rehabilitation intervention aimed at enabling older adults to return and remain living at home after a hip fracture. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this systematic review is to generate results that can be used to create interventions that focus on the care necessary to enable older adults to remain living at home post discharge from acute or inpatient rehabilitation care for a hip fracture. With the support and contributions by our associated knowledge users, this systematic review will be used to help inform procedures and policies to facilitate the necessary care and resources required by our patient population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.440 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207