Anu Salpakoski1, Timo Törmäkangas2, Johanna Edgren2, Mauri Kallinen3, Sanna E Sihvonen4, Maija Pesola5, Jukka Vanhatalo6, Marja Arkela6, Taina Rantanen2, Sarianna Sipilä2. 1. Gerontology Research Center and Department of Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Electronic address: anu.salpakoski@jyu.fi. 2. Gerontology Research Center and Department of Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. 3. Department of Medical Rehabilitation, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. 4. University of Applied Sciences, School of Health and Social Studies, Jyväskylä, Finland. 5. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Central Finland Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland. 6. Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Central Finland Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a home-based rehabilitation program for community-dwelling older people with recent hip fracture is more effective than standard care in improving mobility recovery and reducing disability. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial. SETTING: Rehabilitation in participants' homes; measurements in university-based laboratory and local hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical population of community-dwelling men and women (aged 60+) recovering from hip fracture. Participants were randomly assigned into control (n = 41) or intervention (n = 40) groups on average 42 ± 23 days after discharge home. INTERVENTION: A yearlong multicomponent home-based rehabilitation aimed at promoting mobility recovery and physical functional capacity after hip fracture. The intervention included evaluation and modification of environmental hazards, guidance for safe walking, nonpharmacological pain management, a progressive home exercise program, physical activity counseling, and standard care. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements were outlined according to the tiers of the disablement process, with the ability to negotiate stairs as the main outcome. Prefracture ability to negotiate stairs was enquired at the hospital on average 10 ± 5 days after fracture. Subsequently, current perceived ability to negotiate stairs was reported immediately before the intervention (on average 9 weeks after surgery) and 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter. Other measurements included leg extension power deficit (LEP), functional balance (Berg Balance Scale) and lower extremity performance (Short Physical Performance Battery). Effects of the intervention were analyzed with generalized estimation equations and longitudinal repeated measures mixture path models. RESULTS: The intervention reduced perceived difficulties in negotiating stairs (interaction, group × time P = .001) from prefracture to 12 months compared with the control condition. The mixture path model revealed that less difficulty in negotiating stairs at 6 and 12 months correlated with better functional balance at 3 and 6 months in the intervention group but not controls (group difference P = .007 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The individualized home-based rehabilitation program improved mobility recoveryafter hip fracture over standard care. To be efficacious in reducing or reversing disability after hip fracture, rehabilitation needs to be individualized, include many components, be progressive, and span a sufficiently long period. Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN53680197).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a home-based rehabilitation program for community-dwelling older people with recent hip fracture is more effective than standard care in improving mobility recovery and reducing disability. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial. SETTING: Rehabilitation in participants' homes; measurements in university-based laboratory and local hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical population of community-dwelling men and women (aged 60+) recovering from hip fracture. Participants were randomly assigned into control (n = 41) or intervention (n = 40) groups on average 42 ± 23 days after discharge home. INTERVENTION: A yearlong multicomponent home-based rehabilitation aimed at promoting mobility recovery and physical functional capacity after hip fracture. The intervention included evaluation and modification of environmental hazards, guidance for safe walking, nonpharmacological pain management, a progressive home exercise program, physical activity counseling, and standard care. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements were outlined according to the tiers of the disablement process, with the ability to negotiate stairs as the main outcome. Prefracture ability to negotiate stairs was enquired at the hospital on average 10 ± 5 days after fracture. Subsequently, current perceived ability to negotiate stairs was reported immediately before the intervention (on average 9 weeks after surgery) and 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter. Other measurements included leg extension power deficit (LEP), functional balance (Berg Balance Scale) and lower extremity performance (Short Physical Performance Battery). Effects of the intervention were analyzed with generalized estimation equations and longitudinal repeated measures mixture path models. RESULTS: The intervention reduced perceived difficulties in negotiating stairs (interaction, group × time P = .001) from prefracture to 12 months compared with the control condition. The mixture path model revealed that less difficulty in negotiating stairs at 6 and 12 months correlated with better functional balance at 3 and 6 months in the intervention group but not controls (group difference P = .007 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The individualized home-based rehabilitation program improved mobility recovery after hip fracture over standard care. To be efficacious in reducing or reversing disability after hip fracture, rehabilitation needs to be individualized, include many components, be progressive, and span a sufficiently long period. Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN53680197).
Authors: Antonio De Vincentis; Astrid Ursula Behr; Giuseppe Bellelli; Marco Bravi; Anna Castaldo; Lucia Galluzzo; Giovanni Iolascon; Stefania Maggi; Emilio Martini; Alberto Momoli; Graziano Onder; Marco Paoletta; Luca Pietrogrande; Mauro Roselli; Mauro Ruggeri; Carmelinda Ruggiero; Fabio Santacaterina; Luigi Tritapepe; Amedeo Zurlo; Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: David J Keene; Colin Forde; Thavapriya Sugavanam; Mark A Williams; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Victoria L Tang; Rebecca Sudore; Irena Stijacic Cenzer; W John Boscardin; Alex Smith; Christine Ritchie; Margaret Wallhagen; Emily Finlayson; Laura Petrillo; Kenneth Covinsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jay Magaziner; Kathleen K Mangione; Denise Orwig; Mona Baumgarten; Laurence Magder; Michael Terrin; Richard H Fortinsky; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Brock A Beamer; Anna N A Tosteson; Anne M Kenny; Michelle Shardell; Ellen F Binder; Kenneth Koval; Barbara Resnick; Ram Miller; Sandra Forman; Ruth McBride; Rebecca L Craik Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D Pinto; M Alshahrani; R Chapurlat; T Chevalley; E Dennison; B M Camargos; A Papaioannou; S Silverman; J-F Kaux; N E Lane; J Morales Torres; J Paccou; R Rizzoli; O Bruyere Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.507