Multifactorial intervention for hip and pelvic fracture patients with mild to moderate cognitive impairment: study protocol of a dual-centre randomised controlled trial (OF-CARE)

Sex differences in mobility recovery after hip fracture: a time series analysis

Introduction

Sex differences are commonly reported for hip fracture incidence rates and recovery. Current knowledge about mobility recovery after hip fracture involves clinical assessments of physical capacity or patient-reported outcomes. Information on mobility performance during daily life is missing but relevant to evaluate patients' recovery. Hence, it remains unclear whether sex differences exist in the longitudinal progression of mobility performance in hip fracture patients. To investigate this, we pooled data from four studies in Germany and Norway.

Methods

In all studies, real-world mobility was assessed continuously over 1 to 7 days using a sensor fixed to the unaffected frontal thigh. All studies assessed mobility at different time points that were allocated to three distinct phases: Acute and post-acute phase (week 1-6), extended recovery (7-26), and long-term recovery (27-52). Sex-specific continuous trajectories of the median (50th percentile) as well as the 1st (25th percentile) and 3rd quartile (75th percentile) were estimated using quantile regression models with splines for daily walking and standing duration; number of sit-to-stand-to-walk transfers and walking bouts; mean walking bout duration; maximum number of steps per walking bout.

Results

There were 5,900 valid observation days from n = 717 participants (mean age = 83.4 years, SD 6.1). The majority was female (75.3%), with similar sex distribution across all studies. Demographics of both sexes were comparable, but a higher percentage of women was living alone (69.0% compared to 40.9% in men) and had experienced an indoor fall leading to the fracture (74.3% compared to 67.4% in men). There were clear sex differences in mobility recovery. Women improved their mobility faster than men, but men showed larger increases later in the year after surgery. At the end of the first year, both sexes reached comparable levels in almost all mobility parameters.

Conclusion

We identified varying aspects of mobility recovery between men and women, i.e., timely development of mobility recovery shows different patterns. Our findings support the consideration of sex differences in planning and implementing rehabilitation measures for hip fracture patients and highlight the need to provide adapted support at different time points. The underlying mechanisms of these sex differences need further investigation.

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Background

Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.

Search Methods

Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.

Selection Criteria

Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.

Data Collection and Analysis

Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health-related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2-tool and the GRADE-framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main Results

The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I 2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.32; I 2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health-related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I 2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I 2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions.

Authors’ Conclusions

Twenty-two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short- and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health-related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty.

The static balance ability on soft and hard support surfaces in older adults with mild cognitive impairment

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the static balance ability of the older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) while standing on soft and hard support surfaces.

METHODS

Forty older adults participated in this study (21 in the MCI group and 19 in the control group). Participants were required to perform balance tests under four conditions of standing: standing on a hard support surface with eyes open, standing on a soft support surface with eyes open, standing on a hard support surface with eyes closed, and standing on a soft support surface with eyes closed. Each test was measured in three trials and each trial lasted 30 seconds. Participants were asked to take off their shoes and place their feet in a parallel position with a 20-centimeter distance for bipedal support. The trajectories of the center of pressure (COP) were measured using a Kistler force platform with a frequency of 1000 Hz to assess balance while standing in both groups, with larger COP trajectories indicating poorer static balance in older adults.

RESULTS

With eyes open, the displacement of COP in the anterior-posterior direction(D-ap) (hard support surface: P = 0.003) and the 95% confidence ellipse area(95%AREA-CE) (soft support surface: P = 0.001, hard support surface: P < 0.001) of the COP in the MCI group standing on hard and soft support surfaces were significantly larger than the control group. The 95%AREA-CE (P < 0.001) of the COP in the MCI group on the soft support surface was significantly larger than on the hard support surface. With eyes closed, the root mean square distance(RDIST), root mean square distance-ML(RDISTml), and 95%AREA-CE of the COP were no significant between-group differences when standing on hard support surfaces. However, the RDIST (P = 0.014), RDISTml (P = 0.014), and 95%AREA-CE (P = 0.001) of the COP in the MCI group on the soft support surfaces were significantly larger than the control group. The 95%AREA-CE (P < 0.001), RDIST (P < 0.001), and RDISTml (P < 0.001) of the COP in the MCI group on the soft support surface were significantly larger than the hard support surface.

CONCLUSION

With eyes open, the older adults with MCI showed poorer static balance ability compared to the older adults with normal cognition on soft and hard support surfaces. With eyes closed, the older adults with MCI showed poorer static balance on soft support surfaces, but no differences on hard support surfaces compared with the older adults with normal cognition. With eyes open and closed, the older adults with MCI showed poorer static balance on soft support surfaces as compared to hard support surfaces.

Association of Social Support with Rehabilitation Outcome among Older Adults with Hip Fracture Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study at Post-Acute Care Facility in Asia

OBJECTIVES

There is growing interest in the role of social support during the recovery after hip fractures. The research to date has been mainly focused on structural support, with few studies concerned with functional support. This study examined the effects of both functional and structural aspects of social support on rehabilitation outcomes among older adults with hip fracture surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive older adults (≥60 years) with hip fracture surgery who underwent inpatient rehabilitation in a post-acute care facility in Singapore between January 11, 2021, and October 30, 2021 (n = 112).

METHODS

We administered the Medical Outcome Study-Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS) to assess perceived functional support of patients and used living arrangement as an indicator for structural support. Participants were followed up over the inpatient stay at the post-acute care facility until discharge; thereafter, rehabilitation efficiency (REy) and rehabilitation effectiveness (REs) were evaluated. Multiple linear regressions were performed to examine the associations of MOS-SSS score and living arrangement with REy and REs, respectively, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidity, body mass index, prefracture function, type of fracture, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Perceived functional support had positive associations with rehabilitation outcomes. A 1-unit increase in MOS-SSS total score was associated with 0.15 units (95% CI 0.03-0.3, P = .029) greater gain in physical function after a typical 1-month stay, and 0.21 units (95% CI 0.01-0.41, P = .040) higher achievement in potential functional improvement upon discharge. In contrast, no association was observed between structural support and rehabilitation outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Perceived functional support may significantly impact the recovery of older adults with hip fracture during the inpatient rehabilitation process, independent of structural support. Our findings suggest the potential of incorporating interventions enhancing perceived functional support of patients into the post-acute care model for hip fracture.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, and its impact on society is substantial. After surgery, people require rehabilitation to help them recover. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is where rehabilitation is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supervised by a geriatrician, rehabilitation physician or other appropriate physician. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older people with hip fracture.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (October 2020), and two trials registers (November 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older people (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome - 'poor outcome' - was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up. The other 'critical' outcomes were health-related quality of life, mortality, dependency in activities of daily living, mobility, and related pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The 28 included trials involved 5351 older (mean ages ranged from 76.5 to 87 years), usually female, participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items, such as blinding-related performance and detection biases. We summarise the findings for three comparisons below. Inpatient rehabilitation: multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 20 trials. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation probably results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status, generally requiring institutional care) at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.98; 13 studies, 3036 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 347 people with hip fracture with poor outcome in 1000 people followed up between 6 and 12 months, this equates to 41 (95% CI 7 to 69) fewer people with poor outcome after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), 25 patients (95% CI 15 to 100) would need to be treated to avoid one 'poor outcome'. Subgroup analysis by type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention showed no evidence of subgroup differences. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital but the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase in the number of deaths (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.04; 11 studies, 2455 participants; low-certainty evidence). A similar finding applies at 4 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 18 studies, 3973 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer people with poorer mobility at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 5 studies, 1085 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have little confidence in the findings for marginally better quality of life after multidisciplinary rehabilitation (1 study). The same applies to the mixed findings of some or no difference from multidisciplinary rehabilitation on dependence in activities of daily living at 1 to 4 months' follow-up (measured in various ways by 11 studies), or at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (13 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. Ambulatory setting: supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Three trials tested this comparison in 377 people mainly living at home. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of little to no between-group difference in poor outcome (death or move to a higher level of care or inability to walk) at one year (3 studies); quality of life at one year (1 study); in mortality at 4 or 12 months (2 studies); in independence in personal activities of daily living (1 study); in moving permanently to a higher level of care (2 studies) or being unable to walk (2 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. One trial tested this comparison in 240 nursing home residents. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no or minimal between-group differences at 12 months in 'poor outcome' defined as dead or unable to walk; or in mortality at 4 months or 12 months. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of no between-group differences in dependency at 4 weeks or at 12 months, or in quality of life, inability to walk or pain at 12 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In a hospital inpatient setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery, when delivered by a multidisciplinary team and supervised by an appropriate medical specialist, results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status). There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital and at 4 to 12 months; however, it may also result in slightly more. There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may reduce the numbers of people with poorer mobility at 12 months. No conclusions can be drawn on other outcomes, for which the evidence is of very low certainty. The generally very low-certainty evidence available for supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation means that we are very uncertain whether the findings of little or no difference for all outcomes between the intervention and usual care is true. Given the prevalent clinical emphasis on early discharge, we suggest that research is best orientated towards early supported discharge and identifying the components of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation to optimise patient recovery within hospital and the components of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including social care, subsequent to hospital discharge.

Psychometric properties of the German version of the Fear of Falling Questionnaire-revised (FFQ-R) in a sample of older adults after hip or pelvic fracture

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients with maladaptive fear of falling (FOF) is important in the rehabilitation phase after serious fall. The 6-item Fear of Falling Questionnaire-revised (FFQ-R) was seen as promising measurement instrument as it evaluates FOF in a broader way than the one-item-question and independent of physical activities.

AIM

The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the translated German FFQ-R.

METHODS

Back-translation method was applied. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with diagonally weighted least square estimation was used to verify the two-factor structure. Data were collected during inpatient rehabilitation from hip and pelvic fracture patients [age 84.3 ± 6.2, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores > 23] participating in an RCT (N = 112) and a cross-sectional survey (N = 40).

RESULTS

Internal consistency was 0.78 (Cronbach´s alpha). No floor or ceiling effects were found. Discriminatory power on item level was moderate to good (r = 0.43-0.65). CFA revealed a good model fit and confirmed the two-factor structure. The German FFQ-R was moderately correlated (r = 0.51) with the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International (Short FES-I) used as a proxy measure for FOF. Missing rates up to 9% for specific items were because some individuals, independent of cognitive level or age, had problems to rate items with conditional statements on possible negative consequences of a fall.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrated moderate to good psychometric properties similar to the original English version in a comparable sample of fracture patients.

Relieving distressed caregivers (ReDiCare study): study protocol of a randomized pragmatic trial

BACKGROUND

Providing care for someone with a disease or chronic condition can have a negative psychological, physical, social, and economic impact upon informal caregivers. Despite the socio-economic relevance and more than three decades of caregiver intervention research only very few translational efforts of successful interventions are reported. Still less of these interventions have been implemented into routine services. The aim of the ReDiCare study (German acronym BerTA) is to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped counselling approach for burdened caregivers delivered by care counsellors of two long-term care insurances and registered psychotherapists.

METHODS/ DESIGN

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with 572 caregivers of older adults (≥ 60 years) receiving benefits of one of the two participating long-term care insurances. Participants are assigned (t0) to either the ReDiCare intervention or a control group receiving routine care and counselling. Data are collected at baseline (-t1), 3-month (t1), 9-month (t2) and 15-month (t3). The 9-month post-intervention assessment (t2) is the primary endpoint to evaluate the results on the primary and secondary outcomes, measured by self-reported questionnaires. Depressive symptoms measured with the CES-D are the primary outcome. The main secondary outcomes are physical complaints, utilization of psychosocial resources, caregiver self-efficacy and burden, positive aspects of caregiving and perceived care quality. A process evaluation, including audio tapes, self-report questionnaires and documentation will be conducted to examine internal and external validity of the intervention. Data on direct and indirect costs are collected for the (health) economic evaluation, using a health care perspective and a societal perspective.

DISCUSSION

While comparable previous caregiver interventions have been developed and evaluated for specific caregiver groups (e.g. dementia caregivers, stroke caregivers), the ReDiCare study will indicate whether a stepped approach will be effective also in a broader group of caregivers. The intervention is one of the very few translational studies in caregiver intervention research and will provide valuable insights into relevant factors for training, intervention protocol adherence, effectiveness, and costs for future implementation steps.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (German Clinical Trials Register), DRKS00014593 ( www.drks.de,  registered 14 May 2018) and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, DRKS00014593  ( https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ).

Postacute Management of Older Adults Suffering an Osteoporotic Hip Fracture: A Consensus Statement From the International Geriatric Fracture Society

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients require postacute care (PAC) after a hip fracture. Despite its importance, there is no established consensus regarding the standards of care provided to hip fracture patients in PAC facilities.

METHODOLOGY

A writing group was created by professionals from the International Geriatric Fracture Society (IGFS) with representation from other organizations. The focus of the statements included in this article is toward PAC providers located in nursing facilities. Contributions were integrated in a single document that underwent several reviews by each author and then underwent a final review by the lead and senior authors. After this process was completed, the document was appraised by reviewers from IGFS.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

A total of 15 statements were crafted. These statements summarize the best available evidence and is intended to help PAC facilities managing older adults with hip fractures more efficiently, aiming toward overall better outcomes in the areas of function, quality of life, and with less complications that could interfere with their optimal recovery.

Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

(a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. (b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low. The effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority.