Domains of Balance Training Delivered in Rehabilitation Programs Following Hip Fracture Surgery in Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the domains and characteristics of balance training (BT) interventions delivered in rehabilitation programs following hip fracture to identify potential treatment gaps. METHODS: Manual and electronic searches (Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ProQuest) were conducted. We selected randomized controlled trials with older adults following hip fracture surgery that included either specific BT or gait, mobility, or transfer training. Two independent reviewers extracted data and rated the methodological quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. A third reviewer provided consensus. Extracted BT data included balance domain, progression, frequency, duration, intensity, level of supervision, setting, and rehabilitation phase. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We included 17 trials from 19 studies; 11 studies were rated as moderate to high methodological quality, but only 8 were considered to have high-quality BT components. Half of the interventions included only one balance domain, with stability during movement being the most commonly included domain. The primary balance progression utilized was reducing hand support. Dual task, anticipatory postural adjustment, reactive strategies, and perceptual training domains were rarely included. Balance training duration and intensity were poorly described. Although most programs were home-based with minimal levels of supervision, a few extended beyond postacute phase of rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Further consideration should be given to include more challenging BT domains with planned progressions to maximize patient recovery through hip fracture rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".