A systematic review of evidence for older adults’ sedentary behavior and physical activity after hip fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence on older adults' sedentary behavior and physical activity during rehabilitation and recovery for hip fracture (1) across the care continuum and (2) from clinical interventions. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications using CINAHL, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SportDiscus (last search: 17 October 2017). STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that measured sedentary behavior and physical activity of older adults with hip fracture using activity monitors (e.g. accelerometers). We identified literature at Level 1 (title and abstract) and Level 2 (full text), and conducted forward and backward searches. We assessed observational studies' adherence to reporting guidelines and intervention studies' risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 14 studies (882 participants). Four studies reported sedentary behavior data, while all studies reported information on physical activity. Settings included hospital, rehabilitation centers, and the community. Nine studies were observational; five were experimental design. Older adults had excessive sedentary time (>10 hours/day) and low physical activity. Participants' average upright time differed across settings. During hospital stay, it ranged 16-52 minutes/day, while in the community, it ranged 51-261 minutes/day. Data from five interventions reported on physical activity change: two studies increased between 14 and 27 minutes/day. Another study reported participants accumulated 6994 steps/day at the end of the intervention, but for two other interventions, activity was below 5000 steps/day. CONCLUSION: Based on available evidence, older adults with hip fracture engage in prolonged sedentary behavior and have low levels of physical activity during rehabilitation and recovery.
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 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".