INFLUENCE OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SUPPORTS ON OUTCOMES POST-REHABILITATION FOR HIP FRACTURE SURGERY: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Older adults who sustain hip fractures encounter physical and functional decline after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Currently, a synthesis of literature is lacking on health and social supports that may impact outcomes in the community-dwelling older adults, post-discharge from rehabilitation. Methodology: We conducted a systematic review to a) evaluate how health and social supports influence outcomes for older adults and their caregivers following inpatient rehabilitation post-hip fracture surgery, and b) identify the factors that affect their impact on outcomes. We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, Psychinfo, and Ageline for publications between 2000 and 2018. We followed Cochrane Handbook methods to screen titles and abstracts, appraise quality, collect data and synthesize results. Results: A total of 3364 articles were retrieved, and 34 studies were included for final synthesis, including 24 randomized control trials and 10 observational studies. Most studies excluded persons with moderate or severe cognitive impairment. Interventions can be broadly categorized as either comprehensive care delivered by interdisciplinary teams focusing on exercise, nutrition and fracture prevention; or exercise sessions delivered by health professionals, trained instructors or volunteers. Interventions involving interdisciplinary teams demonstrated moderate improvement of mobility and functional ability in the first 3 months. However, the longitudinal effects of interventions were not realized for all. Conclusion: This review provides evidence of the effectiveness of health and social supports provided to older adults post-hip fracture. We are uncertain of the applicability to people with cognitive decline due to exclusion from most studies. Implications for practice and research will be discussed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".