https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6925-8163
Figures
Abstract
Background
Hip fractures are common fall-related injuries, with rehabilitation and recovery often complicated by cognitive impairment. Understanding what interventions exist, and in what settings, for people with hip fracture and co-occurring cognitive impairment is important in order to provide more evidence on rehabilitation and related outcomes for this population.
Objective
To examine the extent, nature, and range of literature on rehabilitation interventions for adults with hip fracture and cognitive impairment.
Methods
Articles were required to: include an adult population with hip fracture and cognitive impairment, include a rehabilitation intervention, and be published between January 1, 2000 and November 19, 2021. Articles were excluded if they were opinion pieces, study protocols, conference abstracts, or if they did not describe the rehabilitation intervention. Relevant articles were searched on the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. All articles were double-screened by two reviewers and disagreements were resolved through consensus. Data were extracted and synthesized using descriptive approaches.
Results
Seventeen articles were included in this scoping review. We identified a variety of interventions targeting this population; about half were specific to physical rehabilitation, with the other half incorporating components that addressed multiple aspects of the care journey. Interventions had varying outcomes and no studies qualitatively explored patient or family experiences. All intervations were initiated in hospital, with less than half including cross-sectoral components. About half of the articles described modifying or tailoring the intervention to the participants’ needs, but there was limited information on how to adapt rehabilitation interventions for individuals with cognitive impairment.
Citation: Cadel L, Kuluski K, Wodchis WP, Thavorn K, Guilcher SJT (2022) Rehabilitation interventions for persons with hip fracture and cognitive impairment: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 17(8): e0273038. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273038
Editor: Hans-Peter Simmen, University Hospital Zurich, SWITZERLAND
Received: May 18, 2022; Accepted: August 2, 2022; Published: August 15, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Cadel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#427527). Dr. Kuluski is the Mathias Gysler Research Chair in Patient and Family Centred Care and is supported through Trillium Health Partners. Dr. Wodchis is the Research Chair in Implementation and Evaluation Science at the Institute for Better Health and is supported through Trillium Health Partners. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Globally, the proportion of the population that are older continues to rise, which presents a number of challenges for healthcare systems due to the increase in individuals with chronic conditions, disability, and injury [1]. Hip fractures are one of the most common fall-related injuries among older adults that result in hospitalization [2, 3].
Following a hip fracture, individuals frequently experience functional decline, morbidity, and institutionalization [4–7]. Hip fractures are also associated with high rates of acute readmissions, longer inpatient length of stays, and multimorbidity [8]. Hip fracture treatment and recovery can be further complicated by cognitive conditions, including delirium and/or dementia. Impaired cognition has been connected to an increased risk of falls and fall-related fractures (i.e., hip fractures) [9] due to an altered gait [10]. The proportion of patients with hip fracture who have dementia is nearly 20% in Canada [11], 13% in the United States [12, 13], and approximately 25% in the United Kingdom [14]. A systematic review including international literature reported that 24% of older patients with hip fracture experience delirium [15]. Importantly, persons with dementia and hip fracture often have worse short and long-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality at 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, and more than 12 months [16]. These differences in outcomes, are in part, due to differential pathways of care such that persons with dementia and hip fracture may not receive adequate rehabilitation for their care needs [17–19].
According to quality standards for hip fracture care in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, all individuals who experience a hip fracture should receive a baseline cognitive assessment at admission and rehabilitation delivered by an interdisciplinary team (including those with cognitive impairment) [20–22]. Rehabilitation has demonstrated positive outcomes post-hip fracture, with improvements in functional status, mobility, balance, leg strength, health status, and social functioning [21, 22]. Additionally, rehabilitation interventions have shown promising outcomes for individuals with hip fracture and cognitive impairment [23]. For example, a systematic review of rehabilitation interventions for older adults with dementia and hip fracture identified that those with mild or moderate dementia showed similar improvements to those without dementia with respect to fall risk, ambulation, and function [23].
Despite these positive outcomes, current rehabilitation programs often exclude persons with hip fracture and co-occurring cognitive impairment [17–19]. As evidenced by systematic reviews conducted by Hebert-Davies et al. and Mundi et al., individuals with cognitive impairment are frequently underrepresented, or explicitly excluded, in studies and trials targeting persons with hip fracture [18, 19]. With these exclusions, individuals may remain in acute settings with delays in discharge, where they are at risk of additional complications such as hospital-acquired infections [24], deconditioning [25], and mortality [16, 26], or are transitioned out of hospital without appropriate rehabilitation or support [27].
In this context, it is important to better understand what interventions currently exist and in what settings for people with hip fracture and co-occurring cognitive impairment in order to provide more evidence on rehabilitation and related outcomes for this population. To our knowledge, two similar systematic reviews have been conducted [28, 29]; however, there are limitations to these reviews that our scoping review aims to address. First, both reviews focused on specific healthcare sectors, such as community-based interventions [29], long-term care [28], and post-acute rehabilitation settings [28]. As current guidelines recommend mobilization within 24 to 48 hours post-surgery [20–22], it is important to examine interventions offered in acute care, as well as across the continuum of care (including post hospital care in the community). Secondly, the previous reviews limited their populations to older adults (≥65 years old). While older age is a risk factor for both hip fractures and cognitive impairment [30, 31], they can occur at earlier ages as well [32, 33].
The objective of this scoping review was to examine the extent, nature, and range of literature on rehabilitation interventions for adults (aged 18+) with hip fracture and cognitive impairment. A scoping review methodology was appropriate for addressing this goal as it allowed us to identify a broader range of literature available on this topic, examine characteristics pertaining to interventions for persons with hip fracture and cognitive impairment, address current gaps in the literature, and highlight areas that warrant future work.
Methods
This scoping review was conducted based on the most recent methodology outlined by Peters and colleagues [34]. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) was also followed (see S1 Table) [35].
Protocol and registration
A protocol for this scoping review was registered on Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/ZA92V).
Eligibility criteria
The inclusion criteria for this scoping review were as follows: (1) included adults with hip fracture and cognitive impairment, (2) included a rehabilitation intervention that focused on at least physical functioning, and (3) published from January 1, 2000 to November 19, 2021. We only included articles published as of 2000 to ensure healthcare relevancy. Articles were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: (4) opinion pieces (e.g. editorial, commentary), (5) study protocols, (6) did not describe the rehabilitation intervention, or (7) conference abstracts.
Information sources
Databases were selected based on their topic concentrations in order to ensure maximum recall of relevant studies [36]. The following electronic databases were searched on November 19, 2021: MEDLINE (Ovid Interface), EMBASE (Ovid Interface), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost Interface), APA PsycINFO (Ovid Interface), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was also searched for relevant randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines. Using the final included articles, Web of Science was used to conduct forward and backward searching [37] on January 14, 2022.
Search strategy
The original search strategy was developed by the research team. The search strategy underwent a peer review by a librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist [38] and minor revisions were made (see S2 Table for the Medline search strategy). The search strategy used medical subject headings and keywords to combine three main concepts: hip fracture, cognitive impairment, and intervention. The search strategy was manually adapted for each database.
Selection process
All articles from the database searches were imported into EndNote X8, and duplicates were removed following Bramer’s method for de-duplication [39]. Following de-duplication, articles were imported into Covidence for article screening. The titles and abstracts of 25 articles were screened by two reviewers (SJTG and LC) to test their agreement. The screeners had an agreement of 96%, so they proceeded with screening the remainder of the titles and abstracts. All articles were double screened and any disagreements were resolved through consensus. After the completion of the title and abstract screening, the same two reviewers (SJTG and LC) screened 15 full-texts to test their agreement. The screeners had an agreement of 93%, so they proceeded with screening the remainder of the full-text articles. All full-texts were double screened and disagreements were resolved through consensus.
Data charting process
A study-specific, data extraction form was developed in Microsoft Excel to facilitate the consistent extraction of information. Two team members (SJTG and LC) tested the extraction form and completed a spot check of 10% of the articles to ensure the information extracted was complete, accurate, and consistent. Minor/no revisions were made to the data extraction form during this process.
Data items
Data were extracted on general information (title, authors, journal, year of publication, funding), study characteristics (objective, research question, hypotheses, type of population, method of data collection, study design, theoretical orientation, eligibility criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, country, setting), rehabilitation intervention characteristics (description, content, frequency, duration, single or multi-component, format, modifications, tailoring, delivery, setting), population characteristics (sample size, age, sex, gender, ethnicity/race, income, education, marital status, household composition, employment status, reason for hospitalization, type/severity of cognitive impairment, comorbidities, residence pre-hospitalization), study outcomes and findings (results and key findings, conclusions), and qualitative findings, if applicable (themes, conceptualization of themes). The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was used to guide the data items extracted for rehabilitation intervention characteristics [40].
Synthesis methods
Data were synthesized using descriptive approaches. We summarized the study types, years of publication, countries, populations, types of rehabilitation interventions, and outcomes of the interventions. We used content from the TIDieR checklist to guide the presentation of the results [40]. A critical appraisal of articles was not conducted, but is not a requirement for scoping reviews [35].
Results
Study selection
The database searches yielded 6,083 articles, which was reduced to 2,865 following deduplication (see Fig 1). During title and abstract screening, 2,788 articles were excluded. Of the 76 full-text articles screened, 26 met the eligibility criteria and were used to conduct the forward and backward searches. This resulted in an additional 729 titles and abstracts to screen; 728 were excluded, 1 was screened at the full-text level and excluded. We did not include the knowledge syntheses (systematic, scoping, and literature reviews; n = 9) in data extraction or synthesis, so 17 articles were included in this scoping review.
Study characteristics
Table 1 displays the characteristics of the included articles. All of the studies but one (n = 16) used quantitative methods [41–48, 50–57]. Quantitative study designs were randomized controlled trials, including sub-analyses from the trials [43–46, 54–57], prospective and retrospective cohort studies [41, 42, 47, 50–53], and a quasi-experimental study [48]. Of these quantitative studies, three did not have a comparator. The one qualitative study used a case study design [49]. The majority of included articles were published from 2010 onwards (n = 14) [41, 42, 44–50, 53–57]. Studies were conducted in seven different countries: Sweden (n = 6) [41, 42, 44–46, 56], Taiwan (n = 3) [54, 55, 57], Canada (n = 3) [48, 49, 53], Finland (n = 2) [43, 51], Japan (n = 1) [47], Romania (n = 1) [50], and France (n = 1) [52].
Population characteristics
The majority of studies focused on and included older adults (defined as 60, 65, or 70 years and older) [41–48, 50, 52, 54–57] and all but one study [49] had participants with a mean age of 75 years or older. Six articles included only participants with cognitive impairment and hip fracture [41, 42, 47, 50, 53, 57], while the remaining 11 articles included both those with and without cognitive impairment [43–46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54–56]. The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) was most commonly used to assess cognitive status followed by the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ). Functional status was assessed using a number of measures including: ASA Physical Status Classification System, Charnley classification, independent walking ability, Barthel Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Index, Katz ADL Index, and Functional Independence Measure. All articles reported the sex or gender of the participants, but none reported both. Participant characteristics that were not consistently collected across the included articles were education level, marital status, household composition, and employment status. The race, ethnicity, and income level of participants were not reported in any article.
Intervention characteristics
Table 2 displays the intervention characteristics of the included articles. About half of the interventions (n = 8) were specific to physical rehabilitation [41–43, 47, 50–53], while the other half (n = 9) incorporated content into the intervention that addressed additional aspects of the patients’ care journey or support (e.g. discharge planning, patient and family education, nutrition) [44–46, 48, 49, 54–57]. The physical rehabilitation component of the interventions most commonly incorporated standing, walking with or without support, range of motion, balance exercises, and functional strength. As measured by the primary or secondary outcomes, the focus of the majority of interventions was to improve participants’ physical functioning (walking ability) and ability to perform activities of daily living [41, 42, 44–48, 50–52, 54, 56, 57]. Other outcomes assessed less frequently were mortality [42, 43, 46, 50, 53, 54, 56], length of stay [43–46, 56], readmissions [45, 46, 54, 56], and quality of life [42, 57]. The experiences of patients and families were not qualitatively explored in any of the included articles. The interventions were most commonly delivered by an interdisciplinary team consisting of a combination of the following: physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses, social workers, physicians and/or geriatricians. Of the two interventions that were delivered by a single profession, physiotherapists were responsible [42, 50]. About half of the articles (n = 9) described modifying or tailoring the intervention to the individuals’ needs [42–46, 49, 52, 54, 55]. This was usually dependent on how the patient was progressing with their physical rehabilitation [43–46, 52, 54]; however, one article described modifications or adaptations that were made for individuals depending on their level of cognitive impairment [42]. All interventions were initiated face-to-face in hospital (in acute care or inpatient rehabilitation) and six included cross-sectoral components [44–46, 54, 55, 57] in the form of in-home rehabilitation [44–46, 54, 55, 57], in-home training for families [57], community and long-term care assessments, referrals, or initiation of services [54, 55, 57], and telephone follow-ups [54, 55]. There was wide variation in the length, frequency, and duration of the interventions. The length of physical rehabilitation sessions varied from 20 minutes to 60 minutes, the frequency varied from multiple sessions daily to a few sessions per week, and the duration was not consistently reported (some were only delivered until discharge from hospital, while others included follow-up in the community). Most articles described starting physical rehabilitation one day post-surgery.
Intervention outcomes
The outcomes of the interventions varied across the included articles. Improved walking ability was identified in four articles [41, 42, 44, 56]; however no differences were noted in three articles [44, 46, 48]. Preserved or improved performance of activities of daily living (e.g. mobility, bathing, dressing, toileting and continence, transferring, feeding) was identified in four articles [41, 47, 54, 56], with no differences found in two [45, 46]. Length of hospital stay or rehabilitation time was shorter for the intervention group, compared to the control group in five articles [43, 44, 46, 51, 56]. Lower rates of mortality in intervention groups compared to the control were found in two articles [50, 53], with no differences identified in three articles [43, 46, 56]. Four of the included articles compared outcomes between those with hip fracture and cognitive impairment and those without cognitive impairment [43, 46, 52, 54]. Three of the four studies found comparable outcomes between the groups [43, 46, 52]; activities of daily living and walking ability were comparable regardless of cognitive status [46], functional gain was not associated with cognitive status [52], and the ability to return to independent living was comparable between patients with mild cognitive impairment and those with normal cognitive function [43]. The article that found differences noted that patients with cognitive impairment in the rehabilitation group did not experience improvements in subsequent falls (fewer falls) or emergency room visits, as those without cognitive impairment experienced [54]. Patients with cognitive impairment (in the control group) also had poorer outcomes with walking ability and activities of daily living performance when compared to those without cognitive impairment (in the control group) [54].
Discussion
The purpose of this scoping review was to identify rehabilitation interventions for adults with hip fracture and cognitive impairment, while not limiting by sector of implementation or age of the population. Based on the 17 included articles, we found that (1) several forms of rehabilitation interventions were available, with varying outcome measures and success; however, none of the included studies explored patient and family experiences; (2) information on how to adapt rehabilitation interventions for individuals with cognitive impairment was lacking; and (3) few interventions were implemented across sectors.
Sixteen of the 17 included articles were quantitative and most commonly assessed participants’ physical functioning (walking ability), ability to perform activities of daily living, mortality, length of stay, readmission rates, and quality of life. Despite varying results across these outcomes, we identified some evidence to suggest that patients with cognitive impairment should not be excluded from rehabilitation. For example, improvements were identified in walking ability, activities of daily living, length of stay, and physical functioning, and in some cases, the improvements were comparable to those seen in individuals without cognitive impairment. This echoes findings from previous research [28, 29, 58], including two systematic reviews in which benefits of rehabilitation interventions for older adults with hip fracture and cognitive impairment were reported [28, 29], as well as noting that participants did not experience harm (e.g., falls, exacerbation of previous medical issues) when taking part in rehabilitation activities [28]. Further to these reviews, a qualitative study conducted by Sondell and colleagues described the benefits of a multidimensional and interdisciplinary rehabilitation program for older adults with dementia, which included: improved physical abilities, motivation and self-efficacy, feelings of empowerment, the ability to participate in everyday activities, an increased sense of responsibility to continue exercise post-rehabilitation, and the creation of friendships [58]. The study by Sondell et al. provided important contextual information on how the participants experienced the multidimensional interdisciplinary rehabilitation in dementia program, which is currently missing for adults with hip fracture and cognitive impairment. This presents a critical area for future research to explore, in order to better understand the experiences, perceptions, and reflections of those with lived experience pertaining to current rehabilitation interventions.
This scoping review also identified the need to better understand how to modify and tailor interventions for individuals’ needs, especially how to adapt interventions for those with differing levels of cognitive impairment. Only one of the included articles explicitly reported adapting the intervention based on individuals’ cognitive impairment; however, the process for doing so was not described. This finding is similar to that of Chu and colleagues, who described the need for an increased focus on rehabilitation interventions that are tailored, or potentially newly developed, for patients with cognitive impairment [29].
Opportunities to better understand how to tailor rehabilitation interventions to those with hip fracture and cognitive impairment can be explored through qualitative research and co-design. Qualitatively exploring the perspectives and experiences of patients, caregivers, providers, and organizational leaders can serve as a foundational starting point for better understanding patient and family needs during rehabilitation post-hip fracture. Based on their experiences, individuals can provide valuable insights into what is working well, what can be improved, as well as new ideas for tailoring programs for those with cognitive impairment. Additionally, rehabilitation interventions would benefit from being co-designed in collaboration between patients, families, and providers. Since none of the included articles explored patient and caregiver experiences with the interventions, co-design allows for the integration of these perspectives. Co-design includes the meaningful involvement of stakeholders during the planning, design, implementation, and adaptation of the intervention in order to meet the needs and preferences of its users [59]. Despite not having a standardized process, core principles of co-design include: equality, openness, respect, empathy, understanding, and improvement [60, 61]. Importantly, co-design offers a number of benefits for all stakeholders such as increased buy-in, enhanced understanding of goals and objectives, and improved experiences [59–61].
All of the interventions were initiated in-hospital, in acute care or inpatient rehabilitation, with only six including cross-sectoral components. Following a hip fracture, patients frequently experience numerous transitions across different settings and healthcare providers [62, 63]. Transitions in care have been identified as a vulnerable time for patients and families, often characterized as fragmented and resulting in poor health outcomes, including deconditioning, decreased satisfaction, high readmission rates, increased adverse events, and unmet needs [64, 65]. Despite the potential for poor health and social outcomes during care transitions, we found that only half of the articles included in this review incorporated components into the intervention that extended beyond physical rehabilitation to address rehabilitation more holistically (discharge planning, nutrition, and patient and family education). The connection between physical health, mental health, and social health has been well-documented [66, 67], but the integration of the three into rehabilitation interventions for adults with hip fracture and cognitive impairment is lacking. Based on the potential negative consequences that can occur during care transitions, rehabilitation interventions should be multidimensional, addressing physical, mental, and social health, and include cross-sectoral components to ensure continuity along the continuum of care (hospital, primary care, rehabilitation, home and community care) for adults with cognitive impairment following a hip fracture.
Gaps and opportunities for future research
This scoping review identified several gaps in the literature that warrant additional research. First, patient, family, and provider experiences and perspectives should be explored during the development, implementation, and evaluation of interventions for persons with cognitive impairment and hip fracture. Second, rehabilitation interventions should be co-designed with patients and families to ensure their insights and experiences can be used to inform programs and practiced-based decisions. Lastly, based on the interconnectedness of physical, mental, and social well-being [66, 67], there is a need to incorporate components into rehabilitation interventions that extend beyond improving physical functioning (i.e., social aspects, mental health, education for patients and families) and are implemented across sectors.
Strengths and limitations
A few notable strengths of this scoping review are working in collaboration with a librarian to develop a comprehensive search strategy, undergoing a peer review of the search strategy, and supplementing the search with forward and backward searching. Additionally, we used a rigorous double-screening process to ensure two individuals independently screened all potential articles. Despite these strengths, it is possible that some relevant articles were missed due to only searching literature published from 2000 onwards and our search being in English.
Conclusions
This scoping review identified a number of rehabilitation interventions for adults with hip fracture and cognitive impairment. The majority of included studies were quantitative, with a lack of exploration of patient and family experiences. Interventions had varying outcomes, but there were some positive results, highlights the need for providing post-hip fracture rehabilitation to adults with cognitive impairment. All interventions were initiated in hospital, with few including cross-sectoral components. Future work should focus on exploring patient, family, and provider experiences with rehabilitation interventions, tailoring interventions for those with cognitive impairment, and implementing interventions across sectors.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273038.s001
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the librarian at Trillium Health Partners (Antonia Giannarakos) for her guidance and peer review of the search strategy.
References
- 1.
World Health Organization. World report on disability. Geneza, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2011.
- 2. DeGrauw X, Annest JL, Stevens JA, Xu L, Coronado V. Unintentional injuries treated in hospital emergency departments among persons aged 65 years and older, United States, 2006–2011. Journal of Safety Research. 2016;56:105–9. pmid:26875172
- 3.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Seniors and Falls. Available online at https://www.cihi.ca/en/seniors_falls_info_en.pdf. 2010
- 4. Magaziner J, Fredman L, Hawkes W, Hebel JR, Zimmerman S, Orwig DL, Wehren L. Changes in functional status attributable to hip fracture: a comparison of hip fracture patients to community-dwelling aged. American journal of epidemiology. 2003;157(11):1023–31. pmid:12777366
- 5. Borgstrom F, Lekander I, Ivergard M, Strom O, Svedbom A, Alekna V, et al. The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS)—quality of life during the first 4 months after fracture. Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2013;24(3):811–23. pmid:23306819
- 6. Chong CPW, Savige JA, Lim WK. Medical problems in hip fracture patients. Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. 2010;130(11):1355–61. pmid:20049603
- 7. Hung WW, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD, Siu AL. Hip fracture management: tailoring care for the older patient. JAMA. 2012;307(20):2185–94. pmid:22618926
- 8. Pollock FH, Bethea A, Samanta D, Modak A, Maurer JP, Chumbe JT. Readmission within 30 days of discharge after hip fracture care. Orthopedics. 2015;38(1):e7–13. Epub 2015/01/23. pmid:25611424; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4465259
- 9. Mirelman A, Herman T, Brozgol M, Dorfman M, Sprecher E, Schweiger A, et al. Executive function and falls in older adults: new findings from a five-year prospective study link fall risk to cognition. PloS one. 2012;7(6):e40297. Epub 2012/07/07. pmid:22768271; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3386974
- 10. Kearney FC, Harwood RH, Gladman JR, Lincoln N, Masud T. The relationship between executive function and falls and gait abnormalities in older adults: a systematic review. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2013;36(1–2):20–35. Epub 2013/05/29. pmid:23712088.
- 11. Seitz DP, Adunuri N, Gill SS, Rochon PA. Prevalence of dementia and cognitive impairment among older adults with hip fractures. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2011;12(8):556–64. Epub 2011/04/01. pmid:21450227.
- 12. Rasu RS, Zalmai R, Karpes Matusevich AR, Hunt SL, Phadnis MA, Rianon N. Shorter length of hospital stay for hip fracture in those with dementia and without a known diagnosis of osteoporosis in the USA. BMC Geriatrics. 2020;20(1):523. pmid:33272213
- 13. Brauer CA, Coca-Perraillon M, Cutler DM, Rosen AB. Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. Jama. 2009;302(14):1573–9. Epub 2009/10/15. pmid:19826027; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4410861.
- 14. Mitchell P, Bateman K, Synthesis Medical, Novartis. Dementia, falls and fractures: Integrated approaches to improve quality and reduce costs. United Kingdom: 2012.
- 15. Yang Y, Zhao X, Dong T, Yang Z, Zhang Q, Zhang Y. Risk factors for postoperative delirium following hip fracture repair in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research. 2017;29(2):115–26. pmid:26873816
- 16. Bai J, Zhang P, Liang X, Wu Z, Wang J, Liang Y. Association between dementia and mortality in the elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2018;13(1):298. pmid:30470251
- 17. Isbel ST, Jamieson MI. Views from health professionals on accessing rehabilitation for people with dementia following a hip fracture. Dementia. 2016;16(8):1020–31. pmid:26843421
- 18. Hebert-Davies J, Laflamme GY, Rouleau D. Bias towards dementia: are hip fracture trials excluding too many patients? A systematic review. Injury. 2012;43(12):1978–84. Epub 2012/09/25. pmid:22999009.
- 19. Mundi S, Chaudhry H, Bhandari M. Systematic review on the inclusion of patients with cognitive impairment in hip fracture trials: a missed opportunity? Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2014;57(4):E141–E5. pmid:25078940.
- 20.
Health Quality Ontario, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Quality-Based Procedures: Clinical Handbook for Hip Fracture. Toronto, Canada: Health Quality Ontario, 2013.
- 21.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Hip fracture in adults: Quality Standard. United Kingdom: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2012.
- 22. McDonough CM, Harris-Hayes M, Kristensen MT, Overgaard JA, Herring TB, Kenny AM, et al. Physical Therapy Management of Older Adults With Hip Fracture. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2021;51(2):CPG1–CPG81. pmid:33522384
- 23. Allen J, Koziak A, Buddingh S, Liang J, Buckingham J, Beaupre LA. Rehabilitation in patients with dementia following hip fracture: a systematic review. Physiother Can. 2012;64(2):190–201. Epub 2012/04/05. pmid:23449813.
- 24. Jasinarachchi KH, Ibrahim IR, Keegan BC, Mathialagan R, McGourty JC, Phillips JRN, et al. Delayed transfer of care from NHS secondary care to primary care in England: its determinants, effect on hospital bed days, prevalence of acute medical conditions and deaths during delay, in older adults aged 65 years and over. BMC geriatrics. 2009;9:4–. pmid:19161614.
- 25. Guilcher SJT, Everall AC, Cadel L, Li J, Kuluski K. A qualitative study exploring the lived experiences of deconditioning in hospital in Ontario, Canada. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):169. Epub 2021/03/23. pmid:33750320; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7941932.
- 26. Mitchell R, Harvey L, Brodaty H, Draper B, Close J. One-year mortality after hip fracture in older individuals: the effects of delirium and dementia. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2017;72:135–41. pmid:28628893
- 27.
Barberi S, Mielli L. Chapter 10: Rehabilitation and Discharge. In: Hertz K, Santy-Tomlinson J, editors. Fragility Fracture Nursing: Holistic Care and Management of the Orthogeriatric Patient [Internet]. Switzerland: Springer; 2018. p. 125–36.
- 28. Resnick B, Beaupre L, McGilton KS, Galik E, Liu W, Neuman MD, et al. Rehabilitation Interventions for Older Individuals With Cognitive Impairment Post-Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2016;17(3):200–5. Epub 2015/11/25. pmid:26612482.
- 29. Chu CH, Paquin K, Puts M, McGilton KS, Babineau J, van Wyk PM. Community-Based Hip Fracture Rehabilitation Interventions for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review. JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies. 2016;3(1):e3. Epub 2016/01/22. pmid:28582255; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5454562.
- 30. Abey-Nesbit R, Schluter PJ, Wilkinson T, Thwaites JH, Berry SD, Jamieson HA. Risk factors for hip fracture in New Zealand older adults seeking home care services: a national population cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics. 2019;19(1):93. pmid:30909862
- 31. Wiklund R, Toots A, Conradsson M, Olofsson B, Holmberg H, Rosendahl E, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in very old people: a population-based study. Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2016;27(3):923–31. Epub 2015/11/04. pmid:26537711.
- 32. Vieira RT, Caixeta L, Machado S, Silva AC, Nardi AE, Arias-Carrión O, et al. Epidemiology of early-onset dementia: a review of the literature. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2013;9:88–95. pmid:23878613.
- 33. Rogmark C, Kristensen MT, Viberg B, Rönnquist SS, Overgaard S, Palm H. Hip fractures in the non-elderly—Who, why and whither? Injury. 2018;49(8):1445–50. pmid:29983171
- 34. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(10). pmid:33038124
- 35. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
- 36. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):245. pmid:29208034
- 37. Briscoe S, Bethel A, Rogers M. Conduct and reporting of citation searching in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study. Research Synthesis Methods. 2020;11(2):169–80. pmid:31127978
- 38. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;75:40–6. pmid:27005575
- 39. Bramer WM, Giustini D, De Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3):240–3. pmid:27366130
- 40. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2014;348:g1687. pmid:24609605
- 41. Al-Ani AN, Flodin L, Söderqvist A, Ackermann P, Samnegård E, Dalén N, et al. Does rehabilitation matter in patients with femoral neck fracture and cognitive impairment? A prospective study of 246 patients. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2010;91(1):51–7. pmid:20103396. Language: English. Entry Date: 20100305. Revision Date: 20200708. Publication Type: Journal Article.
- 42. Chammout G, Kelly-Pettersson P, Hedbeck C-J, Bodén H, Stark A, Mukka S, et al. Primary hemiarthroplasty for the elderly patient with cognitive dysfunction and a displaced femoral neck fracture: a prospective, observational cohort study. Aging Clinical & Experimental Research. 2021;33(5):1275–83. pmid:32705584. Language: English. Entry Date: 20210504. Revision Date: 20210507. Publication Type: Article.
- 43. Huusko TM, Karppi P, Avikainen V, Kautiainen H, Sulkava R. Randomised, clinically controlled trial of intensive geriatric rehabilitation in patients with hip fracture: subgroup analysis of patients with dementia. BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition). 2000;321(7269):1107–11. pmid:11061730. Language: English. Entry Date: 20010511. Revision Date: 20200708. Publication Type: Journal Article.
- 44. Karlsson Å, Berggren M, Gustafson Y, Olofsson B, Lindelöf N, Stenvall M. Effects of Geriatric Interdisciplinary Home Rehabilitation on Walking Ability and Length of Hospital Stay After Hip Fracture: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2016;17(5):464.e9–.e15. pmid:26975205. Language: English. Entry Date: 20160512. Revision Date: 20160512. Publication Type: Article.
- 45. Karlsson A, Lindelof N, Berggren M, Stenvall M, Gustafson Y, Nordstrom P, et al. Geriatric interdisciplinary home rehabilitation after hip fracture in people with dementia—a subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Clinical interventions in aging. 2020;15:1575–86. pmid:32943858
- 46. Karlsson Å, Lindelöf N, Olofsson B, Berggren M, Gustafson Y, Nordström P, et al. Effects of Geriatric Interdisciplinary Home Rehabilitation on Independence in Activities of Daily Living in Older People With Hip Fracture: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2020;101(4):571–8. pmid:31935353. Language: English. Entry Date: 20200328. Revision Date: 20210521. Publication Type: Article.
- 47. Kazuaki U, Hiroki M, Kiyohide F, Hideo Y. Intensive In-Hospital Rehabilitation After Hip Fracture Surgery and Activities of Daily Living in Patients With Dementia: Retrospective Analysis of a Nationwide Inpatient Database. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2019;100(12):2301–7. pmid:31421098. Language: English. Entry Date: 20191231. Revision Date: 20191231. Publication Type: Article.
- 48. McGilton KS, Davis AM, Naglie G, Mahomed N, Flannery J, Jaglal S, et al. Evaluation of patient-centered rehabilitation model targeting older persons with a hip fracture, including those with cognitive impairment. BMC Geriatrics. 2013;13(1):136–. pmid:24330470. Language: English. Entry Date: 20141107. Revision Date: 20211030. Publication Type: journal article.
- 49. McGilton KS, Vellani S, Zheng N, Wang D, Yeung L, Escrig-Pinol A. Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on rehabilitating persons with cognitive impairment. Dementia (14713012). 2021;20(5):1772–90. pmid:33222528. Language: English. Entry Date: 20210624. Revision Date: 20210629. Publication Type: Article.
- 50. Paul-Dan S, Forna N, Popescu DC, Tudor R, Friedl W, Ciubara A, et al. Postoperative Weight-Bearing after Uncemented Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures in Geriatric Patients with Dementia. BRAIN-Broad Res Artif Intellect Neurosci. 2019;10:66–71. WOS:000472549700009.
- 51. Raivio M, Korkala O, Pitkälä K, Tilvis R. Rehabilitation outcome in hip-fracture: impact of weight-bearing restriction—a preliminary investigation. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics. 2004;22(4):1–9. Language: English. Entry Date: 20050520. Revision Date: 20171010. Publication Type: Journal Article.
- 52. Rolland Y, Pillard F, Lauwers-Cances V, Busquère F, Vellas B, Lafont C. Rehabilitation outcome of elderly patients with hip fracture and cognitive impairment. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2004;26(7):425–31. pmid:15204479. Language: English. Entry Date: 20050425. Revision Date: 20190103. Publication Type: Journal Article.
- 53. Seitz DP, Gill SS, Austin PC, Bell CM, Anderson GM, Gruneir A, et al. Rehabilitation of Older Adults with Dementia After Hip Fracture. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2016;64(1):47–54. pmid:26782851. Language: English. Entry Date: 20160126. Revision Date: 20190711. Publication Type: Article.
- 54. Shyu YI, Tsai WC, Chen MC, Liang J, Cheng HS, Wu CC, et al. Two-year effects of an interdisciplinary intervention on recovery following hip fracture in older Taiwanese with cognitive impairment. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2012;27(5):529–38. pmid:21732418. Language: English. Entry Date: 20120713. Revision Date: 20200708. Publication Type: Journal Article.
- 55. Shyu Y-IL, Tseng M-Y, Liang J, Tsai W-C, Wu C-C, Cheng H-S. Interdisciplinary intervention decreases cognitive impairment for older Taiwanese with hip fracture: 2-year follow-up. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2013;28(12):1222–31. pmid:23504666. Language: English. Entry Date: 20140516. Revision Date: 20200708. Publication Type: Journal Article.
- 56. Stenvall M, Berggren M, Lundstrom M, Gustafson Y, Olofsson B. A multidisciplinary intervention program improved the outcome after hip fracture for people with dementia—subgroup analyses of a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2012;54(3):e284–9. pmid:21930310
- 57. Tseng M-Y, Yang C-T, Liang J, Huang H-L, Kuo L-M, Wu C-C, et al. A family care model for older persons with hip-fracture and cognitive impairment: A randomized controlled trial. International journal of nursing studies. 2021;120:103995. pmid:34146844
- 58. Sondell A, Lampinen J, Conradsson M, Littbrand H, Englund U, Nilsson I, et al. Experiences of community-dwelling older people with dementia participating in a person-centred multidimensional interdisciplinary rehabilitation program. BMC Geriatrics. 2021;21(1):341. pmid:34078266
- 59. Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health research policy and systems. 2020;18(1):17–. pmid:32046728.
- 60. Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. The New Zealand medical journal. 2012;125:76–87. pmid:22854362
- 61.
Agency for Clinical Innovation. A Guide to Build Co‑design Capability: Consumers and staff coming together to improve healthcare. Chatswood, New South Wales: Agency for Clinical Innovation, 2019.
- 62. Boockvar KS, Litke A, Penrod JD, Halm EA, Morrison RS, Silberzweig SB, et al. Patient Relocation in the 6 Months After Hip Fracture: Risk Factors for Fragmented Care. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2004;52(11):1826–31. pmid:15507058
- 63. Popejoy Lori L, Dorman Marek K, Scott-Cawiezell J. Patterns and Problems Associated with Transitions After Hip Fracture in Older Adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 2013;39(9):43–52. pmid:23799788
- 64. Brooks L, Stolee P, Elliott J, Heckman G. Transitional Care Experiences of Patients with Hip Fracture Across Different Health Care Settings. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(2):2–. pmid:33867897.
- 65. Naylor M, Keating SA. Transitional care: Moving patients from one care setting to another. American Journal of Nursing. 2008;108(9 Suppl):58–63. pmid:18797231.
- 66. Ohrnberger J, Fichera E, Sutton M. The relationship between physical and mental health: A mediation analysis. Social Science & Medicine. 2017;195:42–9. pmid:29132081
- 67.
World Health Organization. Mental health: strengthening our response Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2018 [04-Apr-2022]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response