Effectiveness of sensor monitoring in a rehabilitation programme for older patients after hip fracture: a three-arm stepped wedge randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to test the effects of an intervention involving sensor monitoring-informed occupational therapy on top of a cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT)-based coaching therapy on daily functioning in older patients after hip fracture. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: three-armed randomised stepped wedge trial in six skilled nursing facilities, with assessments at baseline (during admission) and after 1, 4 and 6 months (at home). Eligible participants were hip fracture patients ≥ 65 years old. INTERVENTIONS: patients received care as usual, CBT-based occupational therapy or CBT-based occupational therapy with sensor monitoring. Interventions comprised a weekly session during institutionalisation, followed by four home visits and four telephone consultations over three months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: the primary outcome was patient-reported daily functioning at 6 months, assessed with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. RESULTS: a total of 240 patients (mean[SD] age, 83.8[6.9] years were enrolled. At baseline, the mean Canadian Occupational Performance Measure scores (range 1-10) were 2.92 (SE 0.20) and 3.09 (SE 0.21) for the care as usual and CBT-based occupational therapy with sensor monitoring groups, respectively. At six months, these values were 6.42 (SE 0.47) and 7.59 (SE 0.50). The mean patient-reported daily functioning in the CBT-based occupational therapy with sensor monitoring group was larger than that in the care as usual group (difference 1.17 [95% CI (0.47-1.87) P = 0.001]. We found no significant differences in daily functioning between CBT-based occupational therapy and care as usual. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: among older patients recovering from hip fracture, a rehabilitation programme of sensor monitoring-informed occupational therapy was more effective in improving patient-reported daily functioning at six months than to care as usual. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch National Trial Register, NTR 5716.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".