UNLABELLED: A comparison between soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in nursing homes shows no clinical relevant difference in acceptance and probability of continued use. However, significantly more users of the soft hip protector used the protector 24 hours a day. INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uptake and adherence with the use of hip protectors are poor due to discomfort and impracticality. The aim of the study was to compare uptake and adherence between soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors. We hypothesized a higher uptake and adherence with soft hip protectors than with hard ones. METHODS: This cluster randomized study was performed for 18 months in 18 Norwegian nursing homes. Each nursing home was randomly allocated either soft or hard hip protectors. A total of 1,236 participants were enrolled in the study of which 314 and 290 started to use soft and hard hip protectors, respectively. RESULTS: The uptake among participants in nursing homes provided soft hip protectors was not significantly different from the uptake in nursing homes provided hard protectors. The probability of continued use was a little higher among users of soft hip protector. There were significantly more 24-hour users among those people using the soft protector. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that changing the design might not solve the compliance issue, but may be a step in the right direction, especially for those people who are in need of 24-hour use.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: A comparison between soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in nursing homes shows no clinical relevant difference in acceptance and probability of continued use. However, significantly more users of the soft hip protector used the protector 24 hours a day. INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uptake and adherence with the use of hip protectors are poor due to discomfort and impracticality. The aim of the study was to compare uptake and adherence between soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors. We hypothesized a higher uptake and adherence with soft hip protectors than with hard ones. METHODS: This cluster randomized study was performed for 18 months in 18 Norwegian nursing homes. Each nursing home was randomly allocated either soft or hard hip protectors. A total of 1,236 participants were enrolled in the study of which 314 and 290 started to use soft and hard hip protectors, respectively. RESULTS: The uptake among participants in nursing homes provided soft hip protectors was not significantly different from the uptake in nursing homes provided hard protectors. The probability of continued use was a little higher among users of soft hip protector. There were significantly more 24-hour users among those people using the soft protector. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that changing the design might not solve the compliance issue, but may be a step in the right direction, especially for those people who are in need of 24-hour use.
Authors: T Suzuki; H Yoshida; T Ishizaki; H Yukawa; S Watanabe; S Kumagai; S Shinkai; H Shibata; T Nakamura; S Yasumura; H Haga Journal: Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi Date: 1999-01
Authors: I D Cameron; J Venman; S E Kurrle; K Lockwood; C Birks; R G Cumming; S Quine; G Bashford Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Peter D O'Halloran; Liam J Murray; Gordon W Cran; Louise Dunlop; George Kernohan; Timothy R O Beringer Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: S Yasumura; T Suzuki; H Yoshida; T Ishizaki; H Yukawa; S Watanabe; S Kumagai; H Shibata; T Nakamura; N Niino; H Haga; H Imuta; H Abe; A Fukao Journal: Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi Date: 1999-04
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: I D Cameron; S Robinovitch; S Birge; P Kannus; K Khan; J Lauritzen; J Howland; S Evans; J Minns; A Laing; P Cripton; S Derler; D Plant; D P Kiel Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-01 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