OBJECTIVES: To investigate the factors influencing the acceptability of hip protectors to residents of nursing and residential homes, especially the effect of hip protector type, and resident characteristics. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial with 12 weeks follow-up. Participants were randomised to receive either Safehip or HipSaver hip protectors. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 109 residents aged 61 to 98 years from seven residential homes and two nursing homes in Northern Ireland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage day-time use of the hip protectors over 12 weeks and ongoing use at 12 weeks. RESULTS:42% (119/285) of residents invited to enter the study agreed to take part, and 109 started to wear the hip protectors. 43.1% (47/109) were still using them at 12 weeks. Mean percentage day-time use for all residents during 12 weeks was 48.6%. There was no significant difference in percentage day-time use (p=0.40), or use at 12 weeks (p=0.56) between the residents wearing Safehip and HipSaver protectors. Greater percentage daytime use of hip protectors was associated with being resident in a home for the elderly mentally infirm (75.1%, p<or=0.0005), having a low (12 or less) Barthel score (61.1%, p<or=0.0005), and having been injured in a fall in the last 12 months (57.3%, p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The type of hip protector appeared to make no difference to their continued use by residents. Residents with a history of a fall and those who are physically and mentally incapacitated appear to be more likely to wear hip protectors. These residents, who are at high risk of falling, are also highly dependent on nursing staff. Efforts to increase hip protector use in residential and nursing home should focus on staff, who are in the best position to advise and influence residents and their relatives.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the factors influencing the acceptability of hip protectors to residents of nursing and residential homes, especially the effect of hip protector type, and resident characteristics. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial with 12 weeks follow-up. Participants were randomised to receive either Safehip or HipSaver hip protectors. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 109 residents aged 61 to 98 years from seven residential homes and two nursing homes in Northern Ireland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage day-time use of the hip protectors over 12 weeks and ongoing use at 12 weeks. RESULTS: 42% (119/285) of residents invited to enter the study agreed to take part, and 109 started to wear the hip protectors. 43.1% (47/109) were still using them at 12 weeks. Mean percentage day-time use for all residents during 12 weeks was 48.6%. There was no significant difference in percentage day-time use (p=0.40), or use at 12 weeks (p=0.56) between the residents wearing Safehip and HipSaver protectors. Greater percentage daytime use of hip protectors was associated with being resident in a home for the elderly mentally infirm (75.1%, p<or=0.0005), having a low (12 or less) Barthel score (61.1%, p<or=0.0005), and having been injured in a fall in the last 12 months (57.3%, p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The type of hip protector appeared to make no difference to their continued use by residents. Residents with a history of a fall and those who are physically and mentally incapacitated appear to be more likely to wear hip protectors. These residents, who are at high risk of falling, are also highly dependent on nursing staff. Efforts to increase hip protector use in residential and nursing home should focus on staff, who are in the best position to advise and influence residents and their relatives.
Authors: J Klenk; S Kurrle; U Rissmann; A Kleiner; S Heinrich; H-H König; C Becker; K Rapp Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: I D Cameron; S Kurrle; S Quine; P Sambrook; L March; D Chan; J Stocks; K Lockwood; B Cook; F G Schaafsma Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sheryl Zimmerman; Jay Magaziner; Stanley J Birge; Bruce A Barton; Shari S Kronsberg; Douglas P Kiel Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: S N Robinovitch; S L Evans; J Minns; A C Laing; P Kannus; P A Cripton; S Derler; S J Birge; D Plant; I D Cameron; D P Kiel; J Howland; K Khan; J B Lauritzen Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Adam L Gordon; Phillipa A Logan; Rob G Jones; Calum Forrester-Paton; Jonathan P Mamo; John R F Gladman Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 3.921