HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) web only appendix Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cryer, C Articles by Stevenson, E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cryer, C Articles by Stevenson, E

Factors associated with hip protector adherence among older people in residential care

¹ Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK; Injury Prevention Research Unit, University of Otago, New Zealand; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
² East Kent Health Promotion Service, Canterbury, UK
³ National Patient Safety Agency, London, UK

Dr C Cryer, Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand; colin.cryer{at}ipru.otago.ac.nz

Background: There is evidence to suggest that hip protectors (HPs) prevent fractures among older people living in nursing homes. Studies have found HP wearing rates (adherence) to be low.

Objectives: To investigate factors that are associated with adherence and whether those factors account for the variation in adherence between residential care homes (RCHs).

Design: Six-month prospective study.

Subjects and Setting: 299 people aged 65 years and over (80% female, mean age 86 years) living in 17 RCHs. 128 of these wore HPs at least once.

Methods: All residents in the homes were offered three pairs of SAFEHIP HPs, and adherence was measured using diaries completed daily. A mixed model regression analysis was used to investigate predictive factors for wearing HPs and the effects of these factors on the between-home variability in adherence.

Results: Increased HP adherence was associated with hypertension, incontinence, a previous history of falls and fractures, and hip fracture history in the RCH. Decreased adherence was associated with arthritis of the lower limbs and dizziness on first rising. The large variation in adherence between RCHs was almost completely explained by these factors.

Discussion: The evidence for the efficacy of HPs is weakening. Low adherence compromises the power of trials to detect a real effect. The literature is inconsistent regarding what factors are associated with adherence. Nevertheless, it suggests that some people who are at increased risk of fracture are more likely to wear HPs. Variations in staff or resident knowledge and attitude towards HPs may explain some variation between homes.