The hip instructional prehabilitation program for enhanced recovery (HIPPER) as an eHealth approach to presurgical hip replacement Education: Feasibility randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the fidelity of our study protocol and the fidelity of a co-developed eHealth program designed for people having total hip replacement. METHOD: A single-center, assessor-masked, feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) was used. Fifty-one participants aged 50 and older with hip osteoarthritis who were scheduled to receive a total hip replacement participated in this study. We randomized participants into an experiment or a control group. The experiment group used an eHealth prehabilitation program called the Hip Instructional Prehabilitation Program for Enhanced Recovery (HIPPER). The control group received the usual care (i.e., attended an educational webinar). Feasibility indicators addressed process, resources, management, and treatment, and the primary clinical outcome measure was the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Eight out of 14 feasibility indicators were achieved. All management indicators were achieved. Participant consent and data completion strategies need revision, as 38 % (n = 36) refused participation and 33 % (n = 17) had incomplete data. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for the clinical outcomes (anxiety, pain, activities of daily living, and self-efficacy). Most HIPPER participants rated the eHealth program as "acceptable." CONCLUSION: Results show evidence for the feasibility of the study protocol. The results reveal minor modifications to the study protocol to improve participant engagement, retention rate, and data completion. Moreover, to increase the perceived benefits, the content of the HIPPER can be modified. A refined version of HIPPER can provide accessible pre-operative care to patients undergoing total hip replacement. This program can also improve surgery outcomes by increasing patients' readiness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02969512. Registered on November 21, 2016.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".