Barriers and facilitators to early mobilisation and weight-bearing as tolerated after hip fracture surgery among older adults in Saudi Arabia: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the practice of prescribing and implementing early mobilisation and weight-bearing as tolerated after hip fracture surgery in older adults and identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 healthcare providers (10 orthopaedic surgeons and 10 physiotherapists) from Saudi Arabian government hospitals. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: While early mobilisation and weight-bearing as tolerated were viewed as important by most participants, they highlighted barriers to the implementation of these practices. Most participants advocated for mobility within 48 h of surgery, aligning with international guidance; however, the implementation of weight-bearing as tolerated was varied. Some participants stressed the type of surgery undertaken as a key factor in weight-bearing prescription. For others, local protocols or clinician preference was seen as most important, the latter partially influenced by where they were trained. Interdisciplinary collaboration between orthopaedic surgeons and physiotherapists was seen as a crucial part of postoperative care and weight-bearing. Patient and family member buy-in was also noted as a key factor, as fear of further injury can impact a patient's adherence to weight-bearing prescriptions. Participants noted a lack of standardised postoperative protocols and the need for routine patient audits to better understand current practices and outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to national and global discussions on the prescription of early mobilisation and weight-bearing as tolerated. It highlights the necessity for a harmonised approach, incorporating standardised, evidence-based protocols with patient-specific care, robust healthcare governance and routine audits and monitoring for quality assurance and better patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".