MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790919830 · doi:10.3934/medsci.2018.2.102

Integrating research into clinical practice for hip fracture rehabilitation: Implementation of a pragmatic RCT

2018· article· en· W2790919830 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maureen C. Ashe, Khalil Merali, Nicola Edwards, Claire Schiller, Heather Hanson, Lena Fleig, Karim M. Khan, Wendy L. Cook, Heather McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS Medical Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialHip fractureIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionPhysical therapyRehabilitationOutpatient clinicGeriatricsFidelityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingOsteoporosisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: 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. Design: Implementation evaluation of a parallel-group 1:1 single-blinded two-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Setting: Hospital-based multi-disciplinary outpatient clinic in Vancouver, Canada. Participants: Community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) with hip fracture in the previous year. Interventions: 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. Outcome measures: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. Trial registration: 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.251
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.247
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2510.247
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.505 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIMS Medical ScienceSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207