25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating recovery following hip fracture: a qualitative interview study of what is important to patients

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To explore what patients consider important when evaluating their recovery from hip fracture and to consider how these priorities could be used in the evaluation of the quality of hip fracture services.

          Design

          Semistructured interviews exploring the experience of recovery from hip fracture at two time points—4 weeks and 4 months postoperative hip fixation. Two approaches to analysis: thematic analysis of data specifically related to recovery from hip fracture; summarising the participant's experience overall.

          Participants

          31 participants were recruited, of whom 20 were women and 12 were cognitively impaired. Mean age was 81.5 years. Interviews were provided by 19 patients, 14 carers and 8 patient/carer dyad; 10 participants were interviewed twice.

          Setting

          Single major trauma centre in the West Midlands of the UK.

          Results

          Stable mobility (without falls or fear of falls) for valued activities was considered most important by participants who had some prefracture mobility and were able to articulate what they valued during recovery. Mobility was important for managing personal care, for day-to-day activities such as shopping and gardening, and for maintenance of mental well-being. Some participants used assistive mobility devices or adapted to their limitations. Others maintained their previous limited function through increased care provision. Many participants were unable to articulate what they valued as hip fracture was perceived as part of their decline with age. The fracture and problems from other health conditions were an inseparable part of one health experience.

          Conclusions

          Prefracture mobility, adaptations to reduced mobility before or after fracture, and whether or not patients perceive themselves to be declining with age influence what patients consider important during recovery from hip fracture. No single patient-reported outcome measure could evaluate quality of care for all patients following hip fracture. General health-related quality of life tools may provide useful information within clinical trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Quality of life of people with mental health problems: a synthesis of qualitative research

          Purpose To identify the domains of quality of life important to people with mental health problems. Method A systematic review of qualitative research undertaken with people with mental health problems using a framework synthesis. Results We identified six domains: well-being and ill-being; control, autonomy and choice; self-perception; belonging; activity; and hope and hopelessness. Firstly, symptoms or ‘ill-being’ were an intrinsic aspect of quality of life for people with severe mental health problems. Additionally, a good quality of life was characterised by the feeling of being in control (particularly of distressing symptoms), autonomy and choice; a positive self-image; a sense of belonging; engagement in meaningful and enjoyable activities; and feelings of hope and optimism. Conversely, a poor quality life, often experienced by those with severe mental health difficulties, was characterized by feelings of distress; lack of control, choice and autonomy; low self-esteem and confidence; a sense of not being part of society; diminished activity; and a sense of hopelessness and demoralization. Conclusions Generic measures fail to address the complexity of quality of life measurement and the broad range of domains important to people with mental health problems.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sudden illness and biographical flow in narratives of stroke recovery.

            The conceptual framework of biographical disruption has dominated studies into the everyday experience of chronic illness. Biographical disruption assumes that the illness presents the person with an intense crisis, regardless of other mitigating factors. However, our data suggests that the lives of people who have a particular illness that is notably marked by sudden onset are not inevitably disrupted. Extensive qualitative interviews were conducted with a sample of veteran non-Hispanic white, African-American, and Puerto Rican Hispanic stroke survivors, at one month, six months and twelve months after being discharged home from hospital. Narrative excerpts are presented to describe specific discursive resources these people use that offset the disrupting connotations of stroke. Our findings suggest a biographical flow more than a biographical disruption to specific chronic illnesses once certain social indicators such as age, other health concerns and previous knowledge of the illness experience, are taken into account. This difference in biographical construction of the lived self has been largely ignored in the literature. Treating all survivor experiences as universal glosses over some important aspects of the survival experience, resulting in poorly designed interventions, and in turn, low outcomes for particular people.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Brief cognitive screening of the elderly: a comparison of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) and Mental Status Questionnaire (MSQ).

              One hundred and fifty unselected elderly community subjects were assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) and Mental Status Questionnaire (MSQ). The effects on cognitive test scores of potential confounding (non-cognitive) variables were evaluated. Sensitivities and specificities were: MMSE 80% and 98%; AMT 77% and 90%; and MSQ 70% and 89%. The MMSE identified significantly fewer false positives than the AMT and MSQ. The major effect of intelligence on cognitive test scores has previously been underestimated. Age, social class, sensitivity of hearing and history of stroke were also significantly correlated with cognitive test scores. Years of full time education and depression only affected the longer MMSE and CAMCOG. The MMSE (cut-off 20/21) can be recommended for routine screening. However, as scores are affected by variables other than cognitive function, particularly intelligence, further assessment of identified cases may fail to reveal significant functional impairment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2015
                6 January 2015
                : 5
                : 1
                : e005406
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick , Coventry, UK
                [2 ]Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London , London, UK
                [3 ]Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, University of Warwick , UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Frances Griffiths; F.E.Griffiths@ 123456warwick.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2014-005406
                10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005406
                4289715
                25564138
                29b92e67-9ef7-4668-865e-559c6faae2e7
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 4 April 2014
                : 17 October 2014
                : 30 October 2014
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                Research
                1506
                1704
                1725
                1737

                Medicine
                qualitative research
                Medicine
                qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article