BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO HIP PROTECTOR COMPLIANCE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Hip protectors (HP) represent an attractive strategy for reducing hip fractures in high-risk elderly individuals. However, clinical studies have yielded conflicting results regarding their clinical effectiveness. This is mainly due to poor compliance (acceptance and adherence) among users. As a result, there is an urgent need to identify potential barriers and facilitators to initial acceptance and continued adherence with HP use. Aims/Objectives/Purpose The objective of this Systematic Review is to (1) synthesize available research evidence to identify factors that influence HP compliance among older adults in long-term care facilities; (2) interpret the findings to identify the best strategies to overcome perceived barriers and improve acceptance and adherence with HP use; and (3) package and disseminate the findings in a form that is relevant, practical and easily interpreted by the knowledge users and decision makers. Methods A key word search was conducted for studies published in English between 2000 and 2011 that employed quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research designs. Each study was independently reviewed by two reviewers against the inclusion criteria with discrepancies determined by a third. Results/Outcomes 24 articles met the criteria and 63 barrier and facilitator factors were separated into 4 levels: organizational, staff, resident, and product. Significance/Contribution to the field The outcomes provide decision makers, health professionals, and caregivers with a greater awareness of strategies to improve compliance with the use of hip protectors. Furthermore, researchers will be able to use the information to design better clinical trials that will yield high acceptance and adherence.
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 | 0.020 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".