Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Osteoporosis International
Published in: Osteoporosis International 1/2008

01-01-2008 | Original Article

Uptake and adherence with soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in Norwegian nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial

Authors: H. Bentzen, L. Forsén, C. Becker, A. Bergland

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

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.
Literature
1.
Osnes EK, Lofthus CM, Meyer HE, Falch JA, Nordsletten L, Cappelen I, Kristiansen IS (2004) Consequences of hip fracture on activities of daily life and residential needs. Osteoporos Int 15:567–574PubMedCrossRef
2.
Parker MJ, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD (2006) Effectiveness of hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in elderly people: systematic review. BMJ 332:571–574PubMedCrossRef
3.
Norton R, Campbell AJ, Lee-Joe T, Robinson E, Butler M (1997) Circumstances of falls resulting in hip fractures among older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 45:1108–1112PubMed
4.
Ytterstad B (1999) The Harstad injury prevention study: the characteristics and distribution of fractures amongst elders–an eight year study. Int J Circumpolar Health 58:84–95PubMed
5.
Fuller GF (2000) Falls in the elderly. Am Fam Phys 61:2159–68
6.
Cummings SR, Nevitt MC (1989) A hypothesis: the causes of hip fractures. J Gerontol 44:107–111
7.
Cameron ID, Cumming RG, Kurrle SE, Quine S, Lockwood K, Salkeld G, Finnegan T (2003) A randomised trial of hip protector use by frail older women living in their own homes. Inj Prev 9:138–141PubMedCrossRef
8.
Forsen L, Sogaard AJ, Sandvig S, Schuller A, Roed U, Arstad C (2004) Risk of hip fracture in protected and unprotected falls in nursing homes in Norway. Inj Prev 10:16–20PubMedCrossRef
9.
Harada A, Mizuno M, Takemura M, Tokuda H, Okuizumi H, Niino N (2001) Hip fracture prevention trial using hip protectors in Japanese nursing homes. Osteoporos Int 12:215–221PubMedCrossRef
10.
Kannus P, Parkkari J, Niemi S, Pasanen M, Palvanen M, Jarvinen M, Vuori I (2000) Prevention of hip fracture in elderly people with use of a hip protector. N Engl J Med 343:1506–1513PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Sawka AM, Boulos P, Beattie K, Thabane L, Papaioannou A, Gafni A, Cranney A, Zytaruk N, Hanley DA, Adachi JD (2005) Do hip protectors decrease the risk of hip fracture in institutional and community-dwelling elderly? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Osteoporos Int 16:1461–74PubMedCrossRef
13.
van Schoor NM, Deville WL, Bouter LM, Lips P (2002) Acceptance and compliance with external hip protectors: a systematic review of the literature. Osteoporos Int 13: 917–924PubMedCrossRef
14.
Lundin-Olsson L, Jensen J, Nyberg L, Gustafson Y (2003) Predicting falls in residential care by a risk assessment tool, staff judgement, and history of falls. Aging Clin Exp Res 15:51–59PubMed
15.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J
16.
Oliver D, Britton M, Seed P, Martin FC, Hopper AH (1997) Development and evaluation of evidence based risk assessment tool (STRATIFY) to predict which elderly inpatients will fall: case-control and cohort studies. BMJ 315:1049–1053PubMed
17.
Robinovitch SN, Hayes WC, McMahon TA (1995) Energy-shunting hip padding system attenuates femoral impact force in a simulated fall. J Biomech Eng 117:409–413PubMed
18.
Kurrle SE, Cameron ID, Quine S, Cumming RG. Adherence with hip protectors: a proposal for standardised definitions. Osteoporos Int 2004; 15: 1–4PubMedCrossRef
19.
Forsen L, Sandvig S, Schuller A, Sogaard AJ (2004) Compliance with external hip protectors in nursing homes in Norway. Inj Prev 10:344–49PubMedCrossRef
20.
O’Halloran PD, Murray LJ, Cran GW, Dunlop L, Kernohan G, Beringer TR (2005) 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. Int J Nurs Stud 42:387–397PubMedCrossRef
21.
Yasumura S, Suzuki T, Yoshida H, Ishizaki T, Yukawa H, Watanabe S, Kumagai S, Shibata H, Nakamura T, Niino N, Haga H, Imuta H, Abe H, Fukao A (1999) Compliance concerning external protectors for hip fractures among the institutionalized elderly in Japan. Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi - Japanese Journal of Geriatrics 36:268–273PubMed
22.
Suzuki T, Yoshida H, Ishizaki T, Yukawa H, Watanabe S, Kumagai S, Shinkai S, Shibata H, Nakamura T, Yasumura S, Haga H (1999) Compliance in use of external protectors for hip fractures among the community elderly in Japan. Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi - Japanese Journal of Geriatrics 36:40–44PubMed
23.
Meyer G, Warnke A, Bender R, Muhlhauser I (2003) Effect on hip fractures of increased use of hip protectors in nursing homes: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 326:76PubMedCrossRef
24.
Cameron ID, Venman J, Kurrle SE, Lockwood K, Birks C, Cumming RG, Quine S, Bashford G (2001) Hip protectors in aged-care facilities: a randomized trial of use by individual higher-risk residents. Age Ageing 30:477–481PubMedCrossRef
25.
Warnke A, Meyer G, Bender R, Muhlhauser I (2004) Predictors of adherence to the use of hip protectors in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:340–345PubMedCrossRef
26.
van Schoor NM, Asma G, Smit JH, Bouter LM, Lips P (2003) The Amsterdam Hip Protector Study: compliance and determinants of compliance. Osteoporos Int 14:353–359PubMedCrossRef
27.
Killip S, Mahfoud Z, Pearce K (2004) What is an intracluster correlation coefficient? Crucial concepts for primary care researchers. Annals of Family Medicine 2:204–208PubMedCrossRef
28.
Kirkevold O, Engedal K (2006) The quality of care in Norwegian nursing homes. Scand J Caring Sci 20:204–208CrossRef
29.
Kirkevold O, Engedal K (2004) Prevalence of patients subjected to constraint in Norwegian nursing homes. Scand J Caring Sci 18: 281–286PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Uptake and adherence with soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in Norwegian nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial
Authors
H. Bentzen
L. Forsén
C. Becker
A. Bergland
Publication date
01-01-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 1/2008
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0434-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

Osteoporosis International 1/2008 Go to the issue

Original Article

Changes in vertebral strength-density and energy absorption-density relationships following bisphosphonate treatment in beagle dogs

Original Article

The relationship between body composition and bone mineral content: threshold effects in a racially and ethnically diverse group of men

Original Article

Flattening of sagittal spinal curvature as a predictor of vertebral fracture

Original Article

Increased augmentation index and central aortic blood pressure in osteoporotic postmenopausal women

Letter

Reply to McKiernan: Vertebral height restoration: deflating the rhetoric

Original Article

Pain in fibrous dysplasia of bone: age-related changes and the anatomical distribution of skeletal lesions