Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 15:567–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Parker MJ, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD (2006) Effectiveness of hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in elderly people: systematic review. BMJ 332:571–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 45:1108–1112

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 58:84–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fuller GF (2000) Falls in the elderly. Am Fam Phys 61:2159–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cummings SR, Nevitt MC (1989) A hypothesis: the causes of hip fractures. J Gerontol 44:107–111

    Google Scholar 

  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 9:138–141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 10:16–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 12:215–221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 343:1506–1513

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lauritzen JB (1993) Effect of external hip protectors on hip fractures. Lancet 341:11–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 16:1461–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 917–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 15:51–59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 315:1049–1053

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinovitch SN, Hayes WC, McMahon TA (1995) Energy-shunting hip padding system attenuates femoral impact force in a simulated fall. J Biomech Eng 117:409–413

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kurrle SE, Cameron ID, Quine S, Cumming RG. Adherence with hip protectors: a proposal for standardised definitions. Osteoporos Int 2004; 15: 1–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Forsen L, Sandvig S, Schuller A, Sogaard AJ (2004) Compliance with external hip protectors in nursing homes in Norway. Inj Prev 10:344–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 42:387–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 36:268–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 36:40–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 326:76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 30:477–481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 52:340–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 14:353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Killip S, Mahfoud Z, Pearce K (2004) What is an intracluster correlation coefficient? Crucial concepts for primary care researchers. Annals of Family Medicine 2:204–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kirkevold O, Engedal K (2006) The quality of care in Norwegian nursing homes. Scand J Caring Sci 20:204–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kirkevold O, Engedal K (2004) Prevalence of patients subjected to constraint in Norwegian nursing homes. Scand J Caring Sci 18: 281–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the residents and staff at the participating nursing homes in Bærum and Skedsmo municipalities. Special thanks go to the study coordinators for their support and help in collecting the data. Appreciation is extended to the Norwegian Institution for Health and Rehabilitation for funding this study and to the Norwegian Directorate for Health and Social Affairs for economic support. Finally, sincere thanks to Tytex ALPHA Med and for providing the hip protectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

    H. Bentzen & L. Forsén

  2. Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany

    C. Becker

  3. Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway

    A. Bergland

Authors
  1. H. Bentzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Forsén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Bergland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Bentzen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bentzen, H., Forsén, L., Becker, C. et al. Uptake and adherence with soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in Norwegian nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial. Osteoporos Int 19, 101–111 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0434-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0434-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation