Social Support and Living Situation of Older Adults With Hip-Fracture: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".