Abstract
Summary
Potential predictors of availability and use of hip protectors were studied in residents of 48 nursing homes. The likelihood of being offered a hip protector was reduced in men, in residents with very low or very high care needs, in residents with migration background, and in recipients of welfare aid.
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to analyze potential predictors of availability and use of hip protectors in residents of nursing homes.
Methods
In 48 German nursing homes, individual information on availability and use of hip protectors was collected from all institutionalized residents (3,924 residents; 78.2% women). Information on nursing home characteristics was obtained by telephone interview. The effect of individual variables and of nursing home characteristics on hip protector availability and use was estimated using multilevel logistic regression analyses.
Results
The prevalence of hip protectors being made available was 10.0% in women and 6.2% in men. Sixty-four percent of those with a hip protector used it during the 4 weeks prior to the examination. The likelihood of being offered a hip protector was reduced in men (odds ratio (OR), 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43; 0.83), in residents with very low or very high care needs (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18; 0.56 and OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38; 0.79, respectively), in residents with a migration background (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09; 0.99), and in recipients of welfare aid (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44; 0.81). Nursing home characteristics such as the size of the nursing home or staff participation rate in training measures had no effect on hip protector availability and use.
Conclusion
Predictors of hip protector availability were sex, the degree of care need, migration status, and welfare aid. The lower availability of hip protectors in residents with welfare aid and migration status may be an indicator for health inequality in the German health system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Honkanen LAB (2004) An overview of hip fracture prevention. Top Geriatr Rehabil 20:285–296
Marinker M, Shaw J (2003) Not to be taken as directed. BMJ 326:348–349
van Schoor NM, Devillé WL, Bouter LM et al (2002) Acceptance and compliance with external hip protectors: a systematic review of the literature. Osteoporos Int 13:917–924
Thompson P, Jones C, Dawson A et al (2005) An in-service evaluation of hip protector use in residential homes. Age Ageing 34:52–56
Honkanen LA, Monaghan N, Reid MC et al (2007) Can hip protector use in the nursing home be predicted? J Am Geriatr Soc 55:350–356
O’Halloran PD, Murray LJ, Cran GW et al (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
Cryer C, Knox A, Stevenson E (2008) Factors associated with hip protector adherence among older people in residential care. Inj Prev 14:24–29
Warnke A, Meyer G, Bender R et al (2004) Predictors of adherence to the use of hip protectors in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:340–345
Becker C, Kron M, Lindemann U et al (2003) Effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention on falls in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc 51:306–313
Becker C, Leistner K, Nikolaus T (1998) Introducing a statutory insurance system for long-term care (Pflegeversicherung) in Germany. In: Michel JP, Rubenstein LZ, Vellas BJ et al (eds) Geriatric programs and departments around the world. Springer, New York, pp 55–64
Forsén L, Sandvig S, Schuller A et al (2004) Compliance with external hip protectors in nursing homes in Norway. Inj Prev 10:344–349
Kurrle SE, Cameron ID, Quine S (2004) Predictors of adherence with the recommended use of hip protectors. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59:M958–961
Rapp K, Lamb SE, Klenk J et al (2009) Fractures after nursing home admission: incidence and potential consequences. Osteoporos Int 20:1775–1783
Cameron ID, Robinovitch S, Birge S et al (2010) Hip protectors: recommendations for conducting clinical trials—an international consensus statement (part II). Osteoporos Int 21(1):1–10
Bundessozialgericht (2009). Decision B 3 KR 11/07 R [in German]. http://juris.bundessozialgericht.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bsg&Art=en&sid=f6456689ee079fd7b06e5ec701bb216f&nr=11085&pos=0&anz=1. Accessed 24 June 2010
Simpson AHRW, Lamb S, Roberts PJ et al (2004) Does the type of flooring affect the risk of hip fracture? Age Ageing 33:242–246
Nabhani F, Bamford JS (2004) Impact properties of floor coverings and their role during simulated hip fractures. J Mater Process Technol 153–154:139–144
Acknowledgment
We thank Regina Merk-Bäuml, Ralf Brum, Johannes Laws-Hofmann, Gerhard Dahlhoff, Otto Gieseke, and Stefanie Dörfler from the Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (AOK) for the admission to the data and for the support of our analyses.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Funding
The analysis was supported by a grant of the Forschungskolleg Geriatrie of the Robert Bosch Foundation and by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Förderkennzeichen: 01EL0702, 01EL0717, 01EL0718).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klenk, J., Kurrle, S., Rissmann, U. et al. Availability and use of hip protectors in residents of nursing homes. Osteoporos Int 22, 1593–1598 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1366-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1366-3