Literature DB >> 28798577

Predictors of uptake and adherence to the use of hip protectors among nursing-home residents.

Hege Bentzen1, Astrid Bergland2, Lisa Forsén1.   

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to identify predictors for initial uptake and adherence with the use of hip protectors when offering hip protectors free of charge to nursing-home residents. An 18 months prospective follow up study was carried out in 18 Norwegian nursing homes. One thousand two hundred and thirty-six residents were included in the study of which 604 started to use a hip protector. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify predictors for the initial uptake. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify predictors for adherence. A stepwise backward strategy was used in both the logistic and in the Cox regression. The effect of nursing homes as clusters was adjusted for in the analysis. The uptake rate among all residents was 46% and the adherence was approximately 75% after 3 months, and approximately 60% after 18 months. Female gender [odds ratio (OR): 1.54, 95% CI: 1.06-2.24, P = 0.022], previous fractures (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.02-2.75, P = 0.043), previous falls (OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.35-3.19, P < 0.001) and memory (not able to memorise: OR: 3.71, 95% CI: 2.09-6.59, P < 0.001, large problems with memorising: OR: 2.85, 95% CI: 1.81-4.49, P < 0.001, medium problems with memorising: OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.39-4.33, P = 0.002, some problems with memorising: OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.14-3.48, P = 0.016) seemed to be important predictors for uptake. Among those who took up the offer male gender (HR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.00-2.91, P = 0.049), memory (not able to memorise: HR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14-0.50, P < 0.001, large problems with memorising: HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.22-0.45, P < 0.001, medium problems with memorising: HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30-0.73, P < 0.001, some problems with memorising: HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32-0.73, P = 0.001) and bowel incontinence (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25-0.66, P < 0.001) were predictors for a lower probability of ending hip protector use. Factors related to a high risk of falling were important predictors for both uptake and adherence. The fact that neither memory impairments nor incontinence (bowel) seemed to be barriers to hip protector use is important since these characteristics are common among nursing-home residents and tertiary prevention such as the use of hip protectors is probably the most feasible intervention to prevent hip fractures in this group.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adherence; Hip protectors; Nursing homes; Predictors; Uptake

Year:  2008        PMID: 28798577      PMCID: PMC5546332          DOI: 10.1007/s10433-008-0088-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Ageing        ISSN: 1613-9372


  31 in total

1.  The quality of care in Norwegian nursing homes.

Authors:  Oyvind Kirkevold; Knut Engedal
Journal:  Scand J Caring Sci       Date:  2006-06

2.  An in-service evaluation of hip protector use in residential homes.

Authors:  Paul Thompson; Carol Jones; Adrian Dawson; Peter Thomas; Tracy Villar
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 10.668

3.  Hip fracture prevention trial using hip protectors in Japanese nursing homes.

Authors:  A Harada; M Mizuno; M Takemura; H Tokuda; H Okuizumi; N Niino
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  The effect of type of hip protector and resident characteristics on adherence to use of hip protectors in nursing and residential homes--an exploratory study.

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

5.  [Compliance concerning external protectors for hip fractures among the institutionalized elderly in Japan].

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

6.  Acceptance of hip protectors for hip fracture prevention in nursing homes.

Authors:  M Hubacher; A Wettstein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Predictors of adherence with the recommended use of hip protectors.

Authors:  Susan E Kurrle; Ian D Cameron; Susan Quine
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 6.053

8.  External hip protectors: likely non-compliance among high risk elderly people living in the community.

Authors:  I D Cameron; S Quine
Journal:  Arch Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  1994 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.250

9.  Risk of hip fractures in soft protected, hard protected, and unprotected falls.

Authors:  H Bentzen; A Bergland; L Forsén
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.399

Review 10.  Hip protectors decrease hip fracture risk in elderly nursing home residents: a Bayesian meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anna M Sawka; Pauline Boulos; Karen Beattie; Alexandra Papaioannou; Amiram Gafni; Ann Cranney; David A Hanley; Jonathan D Adachi; E A Papadimitropoulos; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-10-23       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  1 in total

1.  Autonomy, choice, patient-centered care, and hip protectors: the experience of residents and staff in long-term care.

Authors:  Joanie Sims-Gould; Heather A McKay; Fabio Feldman; Victoria Scott; Stephen N Robinovitch
Journal:  J Appl Gerontol       Date:  2013-06-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.