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

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

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

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

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.

Biomechanical comparison of hard and soft hip protectors, and the influence of soft tissue

INTRODUCTION

Hip protectors appear to be promising in preventing hip fractures. Currently, many different hip protectors exist, and it is not clear which hip protector has the best biomechanical properties. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the force attenuation capacity of 10 different hip protectors. Both hard hip protectors, which primarily shunt away energy, and soft hip protectors, which primarily absorb energy, were included.

METHODS

Using a drop weight impact testing system and a surrogate femur, a weight of 25 kg was dropped from a height of 8 cm causing a force of almost 7,806 N on the bare femur, which simulates a severe fall. After this calibration test, soft tissue and the different hip protectors in combination with the soft tissue were tested. Each test was repeated six times. To simulate normal-weight elderly people, a 1/2-inch-thick layer of foam was chosen, reducing the force by 18%. To examine the influence of soft tissue thickness, soft tissue was also simulated by a 1-inch-thick layer of foam, reducing the force by 49%.

RESULTS

In the 1-inch soft tissue test, all hip protectors were capable in reducing the impact to below the average fracture threshold of elderly people (3,100 N), although the hard types performed significantly better than the soft ones (P < 0.001). In the 1/2-inch soft tissue test, only the hard hip protectors were capable of attenuating the peak force to below the average fracture threshold of 3,100 N (hard vs. soft hip protectors: P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the hard, energy-shunting hip protectors were superior to the soft, energy-absorbing ones, especially in a simulation of normal-weight elderly people. With increased soft tissue thickness, soft hip protectors were also capable in reducing the impact to below the average fracture threshold of 3,100 N.

Compliance with external hip protectors in nursing homes in Norway

OBJECTIVES

To investigate compliance with hip protector use.

DESIGN

Observational prospective study.

SETTING

19 nursing homes (1040 beds).

SUBJECTS

All residents during an 18 month period were included in this study.

INTERVENTION

Hip protectors were introduced as a regular part of health care service for all residents. Residents at high risk were encouraged to use hip protectors regularly. Each nursing home had a contact person.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The percentage of residents accepting the hip protector offer, probability of continued use, reasons for terminating use, and percentage of falls with hip protector were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty five percent of the residents accepted the hip protector offer. The percentage increased by age, but showed no significant dependence on gender, profession of the contact person, or size of nursing home. The probability of continued use showed no significant dependence on age and gender. Nursing homes with a nurse as contact person showed 51% higher risk of residents terminating regular hip protector use than nursing homes with a physiotherapist as contact person (relative risk (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.05, p = 0.008). The corresponding result for large (75-92 beds) compared with small (24-68 beds) nursing homes was RR = 1.44 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.02, p = 0.036). Seventy six percent of 2323 falls occurred while using hip protectors.

CONCLUSION

The contact person and size of the nursing home seemed to be important factors for continued use of hip protectors while age and gender seemed to be less important.

Efficacy of a specially designed hip protector for hip fracture prevention and compliance with use in elderly Hong Kong Chinese

BACKGROUND

Hip protectors, while effective in prevention of hip fractures, have been designed for a Caucasian body build and may not be suitable for Asian subjects living in a subtropical climate.

OBJECTIVE

Hip protectors and accompanying shorts were specially designed for use for the Chinese body build and subtropical climate, and tested for compliance and efficacy in fracture prevention.

METHOD

A pragmatic study examining compliance with the wearing of hip protectors, and effectiveness in preventing hip fractures (using a case control design), in 302 subjects wearing hip protectors and 352 control subjects.

RESULTS

Overall compliance varied from 55 to 70%. The relative risk for hip fracture was 0.18 (0.04-0.79), relative risk reduction 82%, and the number of subjects needing to wear a hip protector to prevent one fracture was 33 (19-117).

CONCLUSION

Hip protectors adapted for use in Chinese people appear to reduce hip fractures in routine clinical practice.