@article{ref1,
title="Effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility on ambulatory ability and falls-related self-efficacy after hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
journal="Archives of osteoporosis",
year="2021",
author="Sheehan, Katie J. and Fitzgerald, Laura and Lambe, Kate and Martin, Finbarr C. and Lamb, Sallie E. and Sackley, Catherine",
volume="16",
number="1",
pages="99-99",
abstract="There is limited evidence from 11 randomised controlled trials on the effect of rehabilitation interventions which incorporate outdoor mobility on ambulatory ability and/or self-efficacy after hip fracture. Outdoor mobility should be central (not peripheral) to future intervention studies targeting improvements in ambulatory ability. <br><br>PURPOSE: Determine the extent to which outdoor mobility is incorporated into rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture. Synthesise the evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions on ambulatory ability and falls-related self-efficacy. <br><br>METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, PEDro and OpenGrey for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility after hip fracture from database inception to January 2021. Exclusion of protocols, pilot/feasibility studies, secondary analyses of RCTs, nonrandomised and non-English language studies. Duplicate screening for eligibility, risk of bias, and data extraction sample. Random effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity with inconsistency-value (I(2)). <br><br>RESULTS: RCTs (n = 11) provided limited detail on target or achieved outdoor mobility intervention components. There was conflicting evidence from 2 RCTs for the effect on outdoor walking ability at 1-3 months (risk difference 0.19; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.21, 0.58; I(2) = 92%), no effect on walking endurance at intervention end (standardised mean difference 0.05; 95% CI: - 0.26, 0.35; I(2) = 36%); and suggestive (CI crosses null) of a small effect on self-efficacy at 1-3 months (standardised mean difference 0.25; 95% CI: - 0.29, 0.78; I(2) = 87%) compared with routine care/sham intervention. <br><br>CONCLUSION: It was not possible to attribute any benefit observed to an outdoor mobility intervention component due to poor reporting of target or achieved outdoor mobility and/or quality of the underlying evidence. Given the low proportion of patients recovering outdoor mobility after hip fracture, future research on interventions with outdoor mobility as a central component is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42021236541.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1862-3522",
doi="10.1007/s11657-021-00963-0",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11657-021-00963-0"
}