Trial reportBMJ open2018
Mixed methods process evaluation of an enhanced community-based rehabilitation intervention for elderly patients with hip fracture.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- A community-based rehabilitation package following hip fracture: FEMuR III a multi-centre RCT, economic and process evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Patient Engagement in a Mobile App-Based Rehabilitation Program for Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: Secondary Data Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Implementation of a complex intervention to improve hospital discharge: process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Enhancing psychological wellbeing in hip surgery patients through psychological interventions: a scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Orthogeriatric co-management for the care of older subjects with hip fracture: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the implementation of an enhanced rehabilitation programme for elderly hip fracture patients with mental capacity, in a randomised feasibility study compared with usual rehabilitation. To compare processes between the two and to collect the views of patients, carers and therapy staff about trial participation.
designMixed methods process evaluation in a randomised feasibility study.
settingPatient participants were recruited on orthopaedic and rehabilitation wards; the intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge.
participantsSixty-one older adults (aged ≥65 years) recovering from surgical treatment (replacement arthroplasty or internal fixation) following hip fracture, who were living independently prior to fracture and had mental capacity and 31 of their carers.
interventionsUsual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation consisted of a patient-held information workbook, goal-setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions. PROCESS EVALUATION COMPONENTS: Recruitment of sites and rehabilitation teams, response of rehabilitation teams, recruitment and reach in patient and carer participants, intervention delivery, delivery to individuals, response of individual patients to the enhanced intervention or usual rehabilitation, response of carer participants, unintended consequences and testing intervention theory and context.
resultsUsual rehabilitation care was very variable. The enhanced rehabilitation group received a mean of five additional therapy sessions. All of the returned goal-setting diaries had inputs from the therapy team, and half had written comments by the patients and carers. Focus group themes: variation of usual care and its impact on delivering the intervention; the importance of goal setting; the role of the therapist in providing reassurance about safe physical activities; and acceptability of the extra therapy sessions.
conclusionsLessons learnt for a future definitive RCT include how to enhance recruitment and improve training materials, the workbook, delivery of the extra therapy sessions and recording of usual rehabilitation care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22464643; Post- results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.