K J Sheehan1, L Fitzgerald1, S Hatherley1, C Potter2, S Ayis1, F C Martin1, C L Gregson3, I D Cameron4, L A Beaupre5, D Wyatt1,6, R Milton-Cole1, S DiGiorgio1, C Sackley1. 1. Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, UK. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, Guy's and St. Thomas's National Health Service Foundation Trust, UK. 3. Translational Health Sciences, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK. 4. Faculty of Medicine and Health, John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Australia. 5. Department of Physical Therapy and Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alberta, Canada. 6. Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to determine the extent to which equity factors contributed to eligibility criteria of trials of rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture. We define equity factors as those that stratify healthcare opportunities and outcomes. DESIGN: systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, PEDro, Open Grey, BASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture published between 1 January 2008 and 30 May 2018. Trials not published in English, secondary prevention or new models of service delivery (e.g. orthogeriatric care pathway) were excluded. Duplicate screening for eligibility, risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool) and data extraction (Cochrane's PROGRESS-Plus framework). RESULTS: twenty-three published, eight protocol, four registered ongoing randomised controlled trials (4,449 participants) were identified. A total of 69 equity factors contributed to eligibility criteria of the 35 trials. For more than 50% of trials, potential participants were excluded based on residency in a nursing home, cognitive impairment, mobility/functional impairment, minimum age and/or non-surgical candidacy. Where reported, this equated to the exclusion of 2,383 out of 8,736 (27.3%) potential participants based on equity factors. Residency in a nursing home and cognitive impairment were the main drivers of these exclusions. CONCLUSION: the generalisability of trial results to the underlying population of frail older adults is limited. Yet, this is the evidence base underpinning current service design. Future trials should include participants with cognitive impairment and those admitted from nursing homes. For those excluded, an evidence-informed reasoning for the exclusion should be explicitly stated. PROSPERO: CRD42018085930.
OBJECTIVE: to determine the extent to which equity factors contributed to eligibility criteria of trials of rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture. We define equity factors as those that stratify healthcare opportunities and outcomes. DESIGN: systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, PEDro, Open Grey, BASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture published between 1 January 2008 and 30 May 2018. Trials not published in English, secondary prevention or new models of service delivery (e.g. orthogeriatric care pathway) were excluded. Duplicate screening for eligibility, risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool) and data extraction (Cochrane's PROGRESS-Plus framework). RESULTS: twenty-three published, eight protocol, four registered ongoing randomised controlled trials (4,449 participants) were identified. A total of 69 equity factors contributed to eligibility criteria of the 35 trials. For more than 50% of trials, potential participants were excluded based on residency in a nursing home, cognitive impairment, mobility/functional impairment, minimum age and/or non-surgical candidacy. Where reported, this equated to the exclusion of 2,383 out of 8,736 (27.3%) potential participants based on equity factors. Residency in a nursing home and cognitive impairment were the main drivers of these exclusions. CONCLUSION: the generalisability of trial results to the underlying population of frail older adults is limited. Yet, this is the evidence base underpinning current service design. Future trials should include participants with cognitive impairment and those admitted from nursing homes. For those excluded, an evidence-informed reasoning for the exclusion should be explicitly stated. PROSPERO: CRD42018085930.
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: Rafael Prieto-Moreno; Patrocinio Ariza-Vega; Mariana Ortiz-Piña; Maureen C Ashe; Dulce Romero-Ayuso; Morten Tange Kristensen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jessica Pope Mitro; J Mary Louise Pomeroy; Sarah Osman; Virina Matta; Cindy Cai; Steven Garfinkel; Ali A Weinstein Journal: Rehabil Nurs Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 1.462
Authors: Francisco José Tarazona-Santabalbina; Cristina Ojeda-Thies; Jesús Figueroa Rodríguez; Concepción Cassinello-Ogea; José Ramón Caeiro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.390