Hip protector compliance among older people living in residential care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residential care homes in East Kent with the highest rates of fractured neck of femur were sequentially recruited to evaluate the use of external hip protectors. Seventeen homes participated in the six-month study. All residents were offered an assessment and three pairs of hip protectors. Care staff were given a two- hour teaching session and resource pack on falls. Of the 299 residents assessed, 128 agreed to wear hip protectors. A quarter (24 per cent) continuously wore hip protectors; most did not wear them at night (97 per cent). The average daytime compliance rate was 37 per cent, but varied widely across the care homes (0 to 80 per cent). Compliance rates decreased over time (40 per cent at three months, 30 per cent at six months). The initial low and declining compliance rate was attributed to residents’ unfamiliarity with the hip protector, problems of fitting and discomfort. Variation in staff promoting hip protector use was seen as affecting compliance rates across the homes. No data was published to support this; rather the authors talked about the ‘impressions’ they had gained. The lack of data on why individuals and care homes choose to use hip protectors (or not) is unfortunate.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".