Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20571769›Full record

Trial reportOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2011

Increasing adherence with the use of hip protectors for older people living in the community.

I D Cameron, S Kurrle, S Quine, P Sambrook, L March, D Chan, J Stocks, K Lockwood, B Cook, F G Schaafsma

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in older people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

I D CameronSydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. ian.cameron@sydney.edu.au
S Kurrle
S Quine
P Sambrook
L March
D Chan
J Stocks
K Lockwood
B Cook
F G Schaafsma
The University of Sydney · AUHornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital · AURoyal North Shore Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledFor people at high risk of hip fracture living in community settings, providing hip protectors at no cost increased adherence, but the additional effect of an educational programme was limited. Overall, the level of adherence was modest.

introductionThe objective of the study was to increase adherence with hip protector use by older people at high risk of hip fracture. The study included two randomised controlled trials with 308 older people recruited from three hospital rehabilitation wards and 171 older people recruited from the community.

methodsParticipants were randomised into three groups. The control group received a brochure about hip protectors. The no cost group were fitted with free hip protectors and asked to use them. The combined group received free hip protectors and education sessions about their use. Adherence with the use of hip protectors at 3 and 6 months after recruitment was measured. Secondary outcomes were falls, fractures and hospitalisations.

resultsVery few participants in the two control groups bought a hip protector. Overall adherence in the four intervention groups was modest, but higher in the community recruitment setting (49%) than in the hospital recruitment setting (36%) at 6 months. In the community recruitment group, at 3 months of follow-up, a significantly higher number of participants in the combined group (62%) were wearing hip protectors compared to the no cost group (43%, p=0.04). Five hip fractures occurred during the study, with four sustained whilst not wearing the hip protectors.

conclusionProviding hip protectors at no cost to community living older people at high risk of hip fractures modestly increases initial acceptance and adherence with hip protector use. Additional education may further increase hip protector use in people living in the community in the short term.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAged, 80 and overFemaleHip FracturesHospitalizationHumansMalePatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicProtective DevicesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20571769
OpenAlexW2005396643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.