MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200122879 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.2352

Social Support and Living Situation of Older Adults With Hip-Fracture: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2021· article· en· W4200122879 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Krassikova, Steven Stewart, Jennifer Bethell, Aileen M. Davis, Katherine S. McGilton

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial supportHip fractureLogistic regressionActivities of daily livingRehabilitationMedicineGerontologyOddsEmotional supportCohortCohort studyIndependent livingPsychologyDemographyPhysical therapyOsteoporosisSocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sustaining a hip-fracture is a life-changing event negatively affecting older adults. Although, social support is a known determinant of health outcomes, the relationship between social support and living situation of older adults with hip fracture remains under researched. For this study social support is conceptualized using the Finfgeld-Connett framework, where social support is seen as being composed of emotional and instrumental support. The objectives were to examine the relationship between two domains of social support and living situation: 1) after discharge; 2) 3-months after discharge; and 3) 6-months after discharge from an inpatient rehabilitation facility in a sample of older adults with hip fracture. Emotional support was measured as frequency of interaction with someone one week prior to hip fracture, whereas instrumental support was measured as help received in instrumental activities of daily living. Logistic regression was performed to examine the association between social support and living situation. Majority of study participants (N=139) were older (mean age 81.31), female (77.70%), had no cognitive impairment (68.35%), were not married (58.99%), and lived with someone (51.80%) in their own house (71.95%). Older adults with more emotional support were more likely to be discharged home, however little can be said about the effect of the association (OR 6.80, 95% CI 1.08, 22.31, P<.001). Persons receiving more instrumental support had less odds of living at home 3-months (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21, 0.78; P=.007) and 6-months after discharge (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38, 0.91, P=0.017). Social support is important for older adults during recovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207