The Journey of Recovery: Caregivers’ Perspectives From a Hip Fracture Telerehabilitation Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to explore family caregivers' perspectives of the recovery process of older adults with hip fracture and describe experiences from caregivers who: (1) used the online intervention, or (2) received home-based care provided by the Andalusian Public Health Care System. METHODS: This was an exploratory secondary study with informal family caregivers who had an older adult family member with hip fracture enrolled in a novel telerehabilitation (telerehab) clinical trial. Forty-four caregivers of older adults with hip fracture were interviewed at 6 to 9 months after their family member's hip fracture. RESULTS: Caregivers shared concerns of family members' survival and recovery; they recounted increased stress and anxiety due to the uncertainty of new tasks associated with providing care and the impact on their lifestyle. Although most caregivers were satisfied with the health care received, they made suggestions for better organization of hospital discharge and requests for home support. The main reasons why caregivers and their family member chose the telerehab program were to enhance recovery after fracture, gain knowledge for managing at home, and because of the convenience of completing the exercises at home. There were more family caregivers in the control group who expressed a high level of stress and anxiety, and they also requested more social and health services compared with caregivers whose family member received telerehab. CONCLUSION: Family caregivers are an essential component of recovery after hip fracture by providing emotional and physical support. However, future clinical interventions should evaluate person-centered interventions to mitigate possible stress and anxiety experienced by family caregivers. IMPACT: Family caregivers' perspectives are necessary in the co-design of management strategies for older adults after hip fracture.
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 | 0.028 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".