Patient Perspectives on Engagement in Recovery after Hip Fracture: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To understand older adults’ engagement in their recovery experience and rehabilitation after a fall-related hip fracture. Method. 50 community-dwelling older adults recovering from a recent (3–12 months) hip fracture (32 women, 18 men) participated in telephone interviews using a semistructured format at 6 and 12 months after recruitment into the study. Interviews were conducted as part of a mixed-methods study designed to test the effect of a postoperative hip fracture management program (B4 Clinic). Results. Three substantive themes were identified in the qualitative data: (1) managing expectations; (2) engaging in physical activity; and (3) there is life after fracture. Participants shared valuable insight into how their expectations for their recovery period compared to their lived experience and the role of physical activity in their ability to return to their prefracture activities. Conclusions. Our findings reflect older adults’ expectations for recovery from hip fracture. Encouraging engagement in rehabilitative exercises and addressing expectations prior to hospital discharge may improve patients’ adherence to rehabilitation programs, functional outcomes, and postoperative quality of life. Implications for rehabilitation include the necessity for early and ongoing engagement of rehabilitation professionals.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".