Integrating research into clinical practice for hip fracture rehabilitation: Implementation of a pragmatic RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<em>Objective:</em> Testing clinical interventions integrated within health care delivery systems provides advantages, but it is important to make the distinction between the design of the intervention and the operational elements required for effective implementation. Thus, the objective of this study was to describe contextual factors for an outpatient follow-up clinic for older adults with hip fracture. <em>Design: </em>Implementation evaluation of a parallel-group 1:1 single-blinded two-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial. <em>Setting:</em> Hospital-based multi-disciplinary outpatient clinic in Vancouver, Canada. <em>Participants:</em> Community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) with hip fracture in the previous year. <em>Interventions:</em> Usual care vs. usual care and a comprehensive geriatric clinic for older adults after hip fracture. The primary outcome for the main study was mobility as measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery. <em>Outcome measures:</em> A description of central tenets of implementation that include recruitment, participant characteristics (reach) and aspects of the innovation (e.g., delivery system, fidelity to the intervention, and exercise dose delivered and enacted. <em>Results:</em> We identified the reach for the intervention and delivered the intervention as intended. There were 53 older adults who enrolled in the study; more than 90% of participants returned for the final assessment. We provide a comprehensive description of the intervention and report on dose delivered to participants, and participants’ 12-month maintenance for balance and strength exercises. <em>Conclusions:</em> It is important to move beyond solely assessing outcomes of an intervention and describe factors that influence effective implementation. This is essential if we are to replicate interventions across setting or populations or deliver interventions at broad scale to affect the health of patients, in future. <em>Trial registration:</em> This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01254942).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".