Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

The authors prospectively explored the consequences of hip fracture with regard to discharge placement, functional status, and mortality using the Survey on Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD). Data from baseline (1993) AHEAD interviews and biennial follow-up interviews were linked to Medicare claims data from 1993-2005. There were 495 postbaseline hip fractures among 5,511 respondents aged >or=69 years. Mean age at hip fracture was 85 years; 73% of fracture patients were white women, 45% had pertrochanteric fractures, and 55% underwent surgical pinning. Most patients (58%) were discharged to a nursing facility, with 14% being discharged to their homes. In-hospital, 6-month, and 1-year mortality were 2.7%, 19%, and 26%, respectively. Declines in functional-status-scale scores ranged from 29% on the fine motor skills scale to 56% on the mobility index. Mean scale score declines were 1.9 for activities of daily living, 1.7 for instrumental activities of daily living, and 2.2 for depressive symptoms; scores on mobility, large muscle, gross motor, and cognitive status scales worsened by 2.3, 1.6, 2.2, and 2.5 points, respectively. Hip fracture characteristics, socioeconomic status, and year of fracture were significantly associated with discharge placement. Sex, age, dementia, and frailty were significantly associated with mortality. This is one of the few studies to prospectively capture these declines in functional status after hip fracture.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Bentler, S. E., Liu, L., Obrizan, M., Cook, E. A., Wright, K. B., Geweke, J. F., et al. (2009). The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality. American journal of epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp266

Vancouver

Bentler SE, Liu L, Obrizan M, Cook EA, Wright KB, Geweke JF, et al. The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality. American journal of epidemiology. 2009. doi:10.1093/aje/kwp266. PMID: 19808632.

BibTeX

@article{bentler2009-19808632,
  author  = {Bentler, S. E. and Liu, L. and Obrizan, M. and Cook, E. A. and Wright, K. B. and Geweke, J. F. and Chrischilles, E. A. and Pavlik, C. E. and others},
  title   = {{The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality}},
  journal = {American journal of epidemiology},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.1093/aje/kwp266},
  pmid    = {19808632},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp266}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 40/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 23 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Total 40 of 100.23 of the 58 points we could judge = 40 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (American journal of epidemiology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2009 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 19808632)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 23 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total 40 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Disparities

Also tagged “assisted-living”

199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →