659 PATIENT PERSPECTIVES OF RECOVERY AFTER HIP FRACTURE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND QUALITATIVE SYNTHESIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Recovery is multidimensional highlighted by a wealth of qualitative evidence published on patient perspectives of recovery after hip fracture. The purpose of the current review is to synthesize this evidence of patients’ perspectives of recovery after hip fracture across the care continuum. Methods A systematic search was conducted, focusing on qualitative data from hip fracture patients. Two authors independently screened title and abstracts, full texts, completed extraction, and quality appraisal. Themes for this review were generated using a thematic synthesis of data from original studies. Results Fourteen qualitative studies were included in this review. The overall quality of included studies was high. We identified four review themes: defining recovery, feelings of vulnerability, driving recovery, and reliance on support. Patients considered recovery as a return to prefracture activities or ‘normal’ enabling independence. Feelings of vulnerability were observed for patients irrespective of the time since hip fracture and only diminished when recovery of function and activities enabled participation in valued activities e.g. outdoor mobility. Participants expressed a desire to actively engage in recovery with realistic expectations and benefits of meaningful feedback reported. Reliance on healthcare support varied by time since fracture with patients highlighting a greater reliance on professional support in the early versus late stages of recovery. Reliance on social support persisted until recovery was perceived to have been achieved and was highlighted more for participants who were living alone. Conclusion Patient perspectives of recovery enhance previous understanding of recovery domains. Patient perspectives highlighted hip fracture as a major life event which requires health professional and social support to overcome feelings of vulnerability and enable active engagement in recovery. Future research should investigate the recovery perspective of patients with cognitive impairment, and further consider perspectives on recovery from carers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".