Skip to main content
Download PDF

Patient-clinician digital health interventions for the hip fracture population: a scoping review

BMC Health Services Research volume 23, Article number: 1052 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Older adults with hip fracture often require extensive post-surgery care across multiple sectors, making follow-up care even more important to ensure an ideal recovery. With the increased adoption of technology, patient-clinician digital health interventions can potentially improve post-surgery outcomes of hip fracture patients by helping them and their caregivers better understand the various aspects of their care, post-hip fracture surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature on the impact of hip fracture-specific, patient-clinician digital health interventions on patient outcomes and health care delivery processes. We also aimed to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake and implementation of these technologies and to provide strategies for improved use of these digital health interventions.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review following the six stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and following the PRISMA-ScR reporting format. Searches were conducted in five databases. In addition to hand searching for relevant studies from the references of all included studies, we also conducted a grey literature search to identify relevant primary studies. Screening of titles and abstracts as well as full texts were performed independently by two reviewers. Two reviewers also performed the data extraction of the included studies.

Results

After screening 3,638 records, 20 articles met the criteria and 1 article was identified through hand searching. Various patient-clinician digital health interventions were described including telehealth /telerehabilitation programs (n = 6), care transition /follow-up interventions (n = 5), online resources (n = 2), and wearable devices /sensor monitoring (n = 1). Outcomes were varied and included functional status, gait/mobility, quality of life, psychological factors, satisfaction, survival/complications, caregiver outcomes, compliance, technology-user interactions, and feedback on the use of the digital health interventions. For clinicians, a key barrier to the use of the digital health interventions was the acceptability of the technology. However, the usefulness of the digital health intervention by clinicians was seen as both a barrier and an enabler. For patients and caregivers, all the themes were seen as both a barrier and an enabler depending on the study. These themes included: 1) availability and access, 2) usability, 3) knowledge and skills, 4) acceptability, and 5) usefulness of the digital health intervention.

Conclusion

Many behavioural factors affect the use of patient-clinician digital health interventions. However, a specific attention should be focused on the acceptability of the technology by the clinicians to encourage uptake of the digital health interventions. The results of this scoping review can help to better understand the factors that may be targeted to increase the use of these technologies by clinicians, patients, and caregivers.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Hip fractures are a significant health issue among older adults that require cohesive follow up care to ensure ideal recovery. Post-hip fracture surgery care is often provided across multiple health care sectors and typical follow-up care post-surgery can include pain control and management, osteoporosis assessment and treatment, fall risk prevention interventions, physical rehabilitation, assistive walking devices and/or home modifications, as well as follow-up visits with the orthopaedic surgeon and a primary care provider [1].

Digital health interventions have gained attention as potential tools to support patient-clinician interactions and improve outcomes for individuals with hip fractures [2]. With the increased accessibility to technology, patient-clinician digital health interventions are becoming a more viable option to help hip fracture patients and their caregivers as they navigate the modern health care system for their post-hip fracture surgery care [2].

In recent years, the inclusion of digital health technologies into healthcare processes has been identified as a global priority [3]. The term ‘Digital Health’ covers a variety of different tools including clinical decision support systems, electronic health record tools, patient-clinician communication applications, educational tools, and novel artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms [4]. The World Health Organization classifies patient-clinician digital health interventions as “targeted patient/client communication” technologies [5]. This type of technology intervention typically involves the use of various information and communication technologies to support the exchange of knowledge between clinicians and their patients regarding their care [5]. Providing technology-based interventions to patients and their caregivers can help improve healthcare delivery processes by better engaging them in managing their care and preventing hospital readmissions [2].

Recent reviews of digital health interventions for older adults with hip fracture found that interventions mainly supported physicians in improving their delivery of clinical care [6], with another meta-analysis of randomized control trials (n = 5) showing that nurse/physician voice telephone calls and educational videos interventions were two times more effective to prevent secondary fractures when compared to usual care (OR 2.13, CI 1.30–3.48) [7]. However, there is limited information on the specific components of patient-clinician digital health interventions (e.g., web-based applications, mobile applications, wearable devices, etc.) that are optimal to enhance patient engagement for this cohort. The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature on the impact of hip fracture-specific, patient-clinician digital health interventions on patient outcomes and health care delivery processes. We also aimed to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake and implementation and to provide strategies for improved use of these digital health interventions.

Methods

Design and methodology

We conducted a scoping review following the six stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework [8] and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement for the Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting format [9].

We used the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) acronym: P-Population (hip fracture patients 50 years of age or older who had surgical repair), C-concept (post-surgery care (e.g., pain control and management, mobilization, follow-up appointments) using any patient-clinician digital health interventions such as mobile technology, web-based applications, digital communication tools), C-context (care across various health care settings), design (all studies), Language (English or French), and year (all years).

Our protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/w6a89)​​ [10] and published elsewhere [11].

Patient and public involvement

No patients were involved.

  • (1) Identifying the research question

The following research questions were identified for this review:

  1. 1.

    What is the impact of patient-clinician digital health interventions for older adults with hip fracture on patient outcomes and health care delivery processes?

  2. 2.

    What are the barriers and enablers to the use of patient-clinician digital health interventions for clinicians and patients with a hip fracture?

  3. 3.

    What strategies exist to improve the use of patient-clinician digital health interventions for hip fracture patients?

  • (2) Identifying the research studies

An experienced medical information specialist developed and tested the search strategies through an iterative process in consultation with the review team. The MEDLINE strategy was peer-reviewed by another senior information specialist prior to execution using the PRESS Checklist [12].

Using the multifile option and deduplication tool available on the Ovid platform, we searched Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase Classic + Embase, APA PsycInfo, and EBM Reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL and DARE). CINAHL was searched on Ebsco. All searches were performed on May 15, 2022.

The strategies utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., “Hip Fractures”, “Telemedicine”, “Rehabilitation”) and keywords (e.g., “broken hip”, “digital health”, “post-surgical care”). Vocabulary and syntax were adjusted across the databases. There were no date or language limits but where possible, animal-only records were removed from the results. Records were downloaded and deduplicated using EndNote version 9.3.3 (Clarivate Analytics) and uploaded to Covidence [13]. We also performed citation searching of the included studies as well as a targeted grey literature search of clinical trial registries. Specific details regarding the search strategies appear in Appendix 1—search strategies.

  • (3) Screening the studies

Studies were screened by two reviewers (CB, SH) using a two-step process. Specifically, the two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts (level 1) according to the pre-determined eligibility criteria. For level 2 screening, the same two reviewers independently screened the full texts. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.

  • (4) Charting the data

Data were extracted using a piloted Microsoft Excel form. Two reviewers (CB, SH) extracted the data from the eligible studies. This included (1) general data (authors, year of publication, title, journal, country, purpose); (2) methodological data (study design, theoretical approach, type of participants, number of participants, description of the patient-clinician digital health intervention, data analysis); (3) study results/outcomes (patient outcomes, health care delivery processes; and (4) barriers and enablers. We used the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to extract data about the interventions reported in the included studies [14]. No risk of bias assessment was performed in this scoping review.

  • (5) Summarizing and collating the data

The general, methodological and results/outcomes of the included studies were analyzed using narrative synthesis to summarise and explain the findings. The data was grouped by interventions, and by outcomes (patient outcomes, health care delivery processes).

The barriers and enablers were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. The Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) [15, 16] guided the qualitative analysis of the barriers and enablers. Two reviewers (CB, SH) independently grouped the data extracted from the included studies into themes and coded each theme as a barrier or an enabler. The themes were then mapped to each of the TDF domains. For each barrier and enabler, frequency and percentage were reported to identify the top domains. Any disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus. We identified behavioural change techniques [17] that could address the barriers and enablers identified in the review to help guide the uptake of future patient-clinician digital health interventions for older adults with hip fracture transitioning from hospital to rehabilitation to home. Examples of behavioural change techniques included restructuring the physical and social environments, practicing and giving feedback, providing incentives, identifying social and environmental consequences, utilizing verbal persuasion to boost self-efficacy, explaining pros and cons, providing prompts/cues, and providing appropriate social support.

  • (6) Consulting with stakeholders

As the last stage of the Arksey and O’Malley’s framework [8], we consulted with a small number of clinical experts on our team (MG, SP, PB, AH, VFM) and a digital health developer (NexJHealth, nexjhealth.com). No additional patient-clinician digital health interventions were identified. Feedback provided about the review findings was incorporated into the discussion.

Results

Study selection

A total of 3,638 records were retrieved from the search, of which 9 were duplicates, and 3,584 were excluded at the title and abstract stage. This resulted in a total of 45 studies assessed for full-text eligibility. A total of 25 studies were excluded for wrong intervention (n = 16), wrong patient population (n = 6), and full-text not available (n = 3). The reasons for exclusion are noted in Appendix 2—list of excluded studies. In addition, a targeted grey literature search of ClinicalTrials.gov (n = 388), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (n = 15) and citation searching (n = 42) was performed. Twenty articles from the database searches met our inclusion criteria as well as one additional recent article (published in 2022) was identified through the citation searching. Thus, a total of 21 articles [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38] were included in this review (Fig. 1—PRISMA diagram).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

The included articles were conducted in Spain (n = 4) [18,19,20,21], United States (n = 4) [22,23,24,25], Australia (n = 3) [26,27,28], China (n = 3) [29,30,31], Denmark (n = 2) [32, 33], Netherlands (n = 2) [34, 35], Canada (n = 1) [36], South Korea (n = 1) [37], and Israel (n = 1) [38].

Study designs included randomized controlled trial (n = 4) [30, 31, 35, 38], non-randomized trial (n = 2) [20, 21], quasi-experimental (n = 2) [22, 29], observational/feasibility (n = 5) [24, 28, 34, 36, 37]. In addition, there were qualitative (n = 6) [18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 33], participatory/co-design (n = 1) [32] and mixed methods (n = 1) [27] studies. Majority of studies (81%, n = 17) were published after 2017.

Studies took place in hospital only (n = 2) [27, 37], in both hospital and home (n = 6) [23,24,25, 30, 32, 33], in home only (n = 10) [18,19,20,21,22, 28, 29, 31, 34, 38], in rehabilitation and home (n = 2) [35, 36], or in various settings (n = 1) [26]. Further details are available in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies (n = 21)
Full size table

Patient-clinician digital health interventions

Several types of patient-clinician digital health interventions to facilitate patient-clinician interactions were identified. These included:

  • 1) Telehealth /telerehabilitation programs (n = 6): @ctivehip [18,19,20,21], Hip Hat System [22], Telerehab (TR) [28], CASPAR Health e-system [30], Telerehabilitation program based on a video platform for therapy software program [38], and Mobile App [31]. These programs allow for virtual consultations and enabling timely follow-ups. Real-time video conferencing facilitates direct communication between patients and clinicians, allowing for the assessment of progress, medication management, and addressing concerns or questions.

  • 2) Care transition /follow-up interventions (n = 5): My Hip Fracture Journey [32, 33], Mobile App for post-op monitoring [34], MyPath to Home [36], WeChat Group [29], Rehabilitation instructions after hip fracture [37]. Mobile applications and web-based applications can deliver personalized reminders and notifications regarding medication schedules, appointments, and rehabilitation exercises, fostering adherence and continuity of care.

  • 3) Web-based resources (n = 2): Online hip fracture caregiver resource center [23,24,25], and Digital patient health hub [26, 27]. These educational resources can be in the form of videos, and educational modules, providing patients with information about their condition, treatment options, rehabilitation exercises, and self-care practices.

  • 4) Wearable devices /sensor monitoring (n = 1) [35]. Remote monitoring devices enable clinicians to remotely assess patients' vital signs, activity levels, and adherence to treatment protocols.

Interventions focused on the post-surgery care, including rehabilitation exercises (n = 13), follow-up and management (n = 9), post-hip fracture education and self-care (n = 4), and caregiver needs (n = 3).

Digital health tools used were primarily tele-rehabilitation software (n = 9), web-based applications (n = 6), mobile applications (n = 4), wearable devices (n = 1), and chat software (n = 1).

Functions of the digital health tools

The digital health tools’ functions were grouped according to the 3 categories of the continuity of care framework [39]. The continuity of care framework is defined as “the degree to which a series of discrete healthcare events is experienced as coherent and connected and consistent with the patient's medical needs and personal context” ([39], p.1221). The framework consists of these 3 categories: 1) informational continuity (use of information available to all clinicians to make care appropriate for each patient), 2) management continuity (consistent and coherent coordination between all involved in the care that is responsive to a patient’s needs), and 3) relational continuity (a trusting therapeutic relationship between a patient and at least one caring clinician) as key components of high-quality care. Most studies were focused on management continuity (n = 7) or informational continuity (n = 3) only. A total of 11 studies focused on both management and informational continuity. Details of the interventions are found in Table 2.

Table 2 Description of digital health interventions (following TIDierR checklist) [14]
Full size table

Outcome measures

The quantitative outcomes reported consisted of patient-related functional outcomes (n = 6), gait/mobility (n = 7), quality of life (n = 2), psychological factors (n = 3), and survival/complications (n = 1). Other quantitative reported outcomes included compliance (n = 2), technology-user interactions (n = 4), and caregiver outcomes (n = 3). The qualitative results from 6 studies [18, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37] included feedback from participants on the use of the digital health interventions. Overall, the feedback provided areas for improvement as well as benefits to the use of these interventions. Specifically, three studies included feedback from clinicians [27, 36, 37], two explored specifically the needs of caregivers [19, 25] and one study described the challenges with the study recruitment processes [23]. All the study outcomes are found in Table 3, 4 and 5.

Table 3 Patient-related study outcomes (quantitative)
Full size table
Table 4 Other study outcomes (quantitative)
Full size table
Table 5 Study outcomes (qualitative) (n = 9)
Full size table

Barriers and enablers

Sixteen studies identified key barriers and enablers to the use of digital health interventions [18,19,20, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 33, 34, 36, 37]. For clinicians, a key barrier to the use of the digital health interventions was the acceptability of the technology [27, 36]. However, the usefulness of the digital health intervention by clinicians was seen as both a barrier and an enabler [26, 27, 29, 37]. For patients and caregivers, all the themes were seen as both a barrier and an enabler depending on the study. Some patients and caregivers saw the lack of availability and access to the digital health intervention as a barrier [18, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36] but others had no problems with the availability or access to the intervention [18, 26]. Patients and caregivers described limited usability of the technology [19, 30, 34] where others had no concerns with the usability [18, 24, 28, 36, 37]. There were also conflicting views with the patients and caregivers perceived knowledge and skills to the use the technology, as a barrier [18, 19, 23, 24, 26,27,28, 30, 31, 33, 34] or an enabler [18, 20, 28]. Patients and caregivers described mixed views on the acceptability of the technology as a barrier [19, 26,27,28] or enabler [19, 25,26,27, 33] and the usefulness of the information as a barrier [18, 19, 26, 31, 37] or enabler [18, 19, 24, 25, 36]. Details of the barriers and enablers as well as the proposed behavioural change techniques are described in Table 6.

Table 6 Barriers and enablers to the use of patient-clinician digital health interventions for older patients with a hip fracture transitioning from hospital to rehabilitation to home
Full size table

Discussion

A total of 21 studies were included in this scoping review. Of the 21 studies, we identified 14 distinct patient-clinician digital health interventions for post-surgery hip fracture patients including telehealth /telerehabilitation programs (n = 6), care transition /follow-up interventions (n = 5), online resources (n = 2), and wearable devices /sensor monitoring (n = 1). Many interventions focused only on a few post-hip fracture surgery care components such as rehabilitation exercises (n = 13), follow-up and management (n = 9), post-hip fracture education and self-care (n = 4), and caregiver needs (n = 3) rather than on more comprehensive post-care efforts. In addition, we found that the interventions all existed within a specified team within a particular organization rather than across different organizations, similarly to what others found [40]. Furthermore, these interventions often (or all) lacked complete descriptions following the TidieR guidelines [14] to allow clinicians to use or to allow researchers to replicate the studies. Overall, more clear descriptions of the interventions are needed so that they can be replicated.

In terms of the functions of the digital health tools used in the included studies, the interventions focused primarily on management and informational categories of the continuity of care framework [39]. However, future studies should consider incorporating the relational continuity as an important component of continuity of care.

Although only 3/21 studies in our review specifically included methods to improve clinician engagement, one recent rapid review of transition-focused digital health interventions specifically highlighted the importance of involving clinicians in the design and implementation of these interventions to ensure better uptake [41]. Similarly, another review recommended to better engage clinicians in the design and implementation of technologies [42]. Further considerations should also be made to inform patients on how to use digital health technology, provide appropriate training to clinicians, and ensure that the adoption of the technology will allow clinicians more time to care for patients [42].

In our scoping review, we were also able to identify key barriers and enablers to the uptake of digital health interventions. The unique key barrier was the acceptability of the technology by the clinicians. Thus, the behavioural change techniques [17] related to this barrier are practicing and giving feedback and utilizing verbal persuasion to boost self-efficacy. The behavioural change techniques [17] were also matched to the other barriers and enablers and consist of restructuring the physical and social environments, providing incentives, identifying social and environmental consequences, explaining pros and cons, providing prompts/cues, and providing appropriate social support. Future studies should consider the inclusion of these behavioural change techniques in the implementation strategies of digital health interventions.

Strengths and limitations

The broad inclusion criteria for this scoping review allowed us to examine a wide variety of patient-clinician digital health interventions for the hip fracture population. However, the studies lacked detailed description of the interventions. However, despite the wide-ranging inclusion criteria, it is possible that some studies with non-significant results were not published.

Conclusion

In our scoping review, we identified existing patient-clinician digital health interventions. The findings highlighted many behavioural factors that could affect the uptake and use of these patient-clinician digital health interventions. However, a specific attention should be focused on the acceptability of the technology by the clinicians to encourage uptake of the digital health interventions. The results of this scoping review can help researchers and clinicians to better understand the key factors that can be targeted to help increase the uptake of technology-based intervention use by clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Further research is needed to look at patient-clinician digital health interventions in different patient populations that span across different health care sectors.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during the current study are included in this published article and its supplementary files.

References

  1. Health Quality Ontario; Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Quality-Based Procedures: Clinical Handbook for Hip Fracture. Toronto, ON: Health Quality Ontario; 2013. http://www.hqontario.ca/evidence/publications-and-ohtac-recommendations/clinical-handbooks. Available from

  2. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, Galli L, Felix L, Edwards P, Patel V, Haines A. The effectiveness of Mobile-Health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLS MEd. 2013;10(1):1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mathews SC, McShea MJ, Hanley CL, et al. Digital health: a path to validation. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Yasmyne Ronquillo; Arien Meyers; Scott J. Korvek. Digital Health. Stat Pearls. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470260/

  5. World Health Organization, Recommendations on Digital Health Interventions for Health System Strengthening, 2019. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550505 Accessed 3 May 2022

  6. Zhang J, Yang M, Ge Y, Ivers R, Webster R, Tian M. The role of digital health for post-surgery care of older patients with hip fracture: A scoping review. Int J Med Inform. 2022;160:104709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yadav L, Haldar A, Jasper U, Taylor A, Visvanathan R, Chehade M, Gill T. Utilising digital health technology to support patient-healthcare provider communication in fragility fracture recovery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(20):4047. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16204047.PMID:31652597;PMCID:PMC6843966.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Foster ED, Deardorff A. Open Science Framework (OSF). J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(2):203–6. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.88.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Backman C, Papp S, Harley A, Houle S, Skidmore B, Poitras S, Green M, Shah S, Berdusco R, Beaule P, French-Merkley V. Protocol for a scoping review of patient-clinician digital health interventions for the hip fracture population. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e064988.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Covidence. A Cochrane technology program. https://www.covidence.org/. Accessed 3 May 2022.

  14. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687. Published 7 Mar 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence-based practice: a consensus approach. BMJ Qual Saf. 2005;14(1):26–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, et al. A guide to using the theoretical domains framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Michie S, Atkins L, West R. behaviour change wheel. A guide to designing interventions. 1st ed. Great Britain: Silverback Publishing; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ariza-Vega P, Castillo-Pérez H, Ortiz-Piña M, Ziden L, Palomino-Vidal J, Ashe MC. The journey of recovery: caregivers’ perspectives from a hip fracture telerehabilitation clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2021;101(3):pzaa220. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa220. PMID: 33351931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ariza-Vega P, Prieto-Moreno R, Castillo-Pérez H, Martínez-Ruiz V, Romero-Ayuso D, Ashe MC. Family caregivers’ experiences with tele-rehabilitation for older adults with hip fracture. J Clin Med. 2021;10(24):5850. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245850.PMID:34945145;PMCID:PMC8708159.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ortiz-Piña M, Molina-Garcia P, Femia P, Ashe MC, Martín-Martín L, Salazar-Graván S, Salas-Fariña Z, Prieto-Moreno R, Castellote-Caballero Y, Estevez-Lopez F, Ariza-Vega P. Effects of tele-rehabilitation compared with home-based in-person rehabilitation for older adult’s function after hip fracture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10):5493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105493.PMID:34065523;PMCID:PMC8161237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Mora-Traverso M, Prieto-Moreno R, Molina-Garcia P, Salas-Fariña Z, Martín-Martín L, Martín-Matillas M, Ariza-Vega P. Effects of the @ctivehip telerehabilitation program on the quality of life, psychological factors and fitness level of patients with hip fracture. J Telemed Telecare. 2022;1357633X211073256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X211073256

  22. Bedra M, Finkelstein J. Feasibility of post-acute hip fracture telerehabilitation in older adults. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;210:469–73 PMID: 25991191.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nahm ES, Orwig D, Resnick B, Magaziner J, Bellantoni M, Sterling R. Recruitment of older adult patient-caregiver Dyads for an online caregiver resource program: lessons learned. Ageing Int. 2012;37(4):489–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-011-9128-x. Epub 2011 Oct 26. PMID: 23549905; PMCID: PMC3580773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nahm ES, Resnick B, Orwig D, Magaziner J, Bellantoni M, Sterling R, Brennan PF. A theory-based online hip fracture resource center for caregivers: effects on dyads. Nurs Res. 2012;61(6):413–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e318270712a. PMID: 23052420; PMCID: PMC3491116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Nahm ES, Resnick B, Plummer L, Park BK. Use of discussion boards in an online hip fracture resource center for caregivers. Orthop Nurs. 2013;32(2):89–95. https://doi.org/10.1097/NOR.0b013e318289fa22. PMID: 23518751; PMCID: PMC3690363 quiz 96-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Yadav L, Gill TK, Taylor A, De Young J, Chehade MJ. Identifying opportunities, and motivation to enhance capabilities, influencing the development of a personalized digital health hub model of care for hip fractures: mixed methods exploratory study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(10):e26886. https://doi.org/10.2196/26886. PMID: 34709183; PMCID: PMC8587193.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Yadav L, Gill TK, Taylor A, deYoung J, Visvanathan R, Chehade MJ. “Context, content, and system” supporting digital health hub (DHH)-enabled models of care (MoCs) for fragility hip fractures: perspectives of diverse multidisciplinary stakeholders in South Australia from qualitative in-depth interviews. Arch Osteoporos. 2021;16(1):167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-021-01031-3.PMID:34741200;PMCID:PMC8571011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Morris C, Van den Berg M, Barr C, George S, Crotty M. Demographic characteristics and functional levels of patients with fragility fractures who accept tele-rehabilitation as an alternative to face-to-face home rehabilitation. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2021;33(3):171–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1084822320983314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gao SS, Wang YJ, Zhang GX, Zhang WT. Rehabilitation guidance for hip fracture patients during the COVID-19 pandemic using chat software: a new model. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021;34(3):337–42. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-200324. PMID: 33896813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Li CT, Hung GK, Fong KN, Gonzalez PC, Wah SH, Tsang HW. Effects of home-based occupational therapy telerehabilitation via smartphone for outpatients after hip fracture surgery: a feasibility randomised controlled study. J Telemed Telecare. 2022;28(4):239–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20932434. Epub 2020 Jun 28 PMID: 32594832.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cheng KC, Lau KMK, Cheng ASK, Lau TSK, Lau FOT, Lau MCH, Law SW. Use of mobile app to enhance functional outcomes and adherence of home-based rehabilitation program for elderly with hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2022;42(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1142/S101370252250010X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jensen CM, Overgaard S, Wiil UK, Smith AC, Clemensen J. Bridging the gap: A user-driven study on new ways to support self-care and empowerment for patients with hip fracture. SAGE Open Med. 2018;7(6):2050312118799121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118799121.PMID:30210796;PMCID:PMC6130081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jensen CM, Overgaard S, Wiil UK, Clemensen J. Can tele-health support self-care and empowerment? A qualitative study of hip fracture patients’ experiences with testing an “App.” SAGE Open Nurs. 2019;21(5):2377960819825752. https://doi.org/10.1177/2377960819825752.PMID:33415217;PMCID:PMC7774387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Geerds MAJ, Nijmeijer WS, Hegeman JH, Vollenbroek-Hutten MMR. Mobile app for monitoring 3-month postoperative functional outcome after hip fracture: usability study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2020;7(3):e16989. https://doi.org/10.2196/16989. PMID: 32924949; PMCID: PMC7522745.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Pol MC, Ter Riet G, van Hartingsveldt M, Kröse B, de Rooij SE, Buurman BM. Effectiveness of sensor monitoring in an occupational therapy rehabilitation program for older individuals after hip fracture, the SO-HIP trial: study protocol of a three-arm stepped wedge cluster randomized trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1934-0.PMID:28049480;PMCID:PMC5209842.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Backman C, Harley A, Kuziemsky C, Mercer J, Peyton L. MyPath to home web-based application for the geriatric rehabilitation program at bruyère continuing care: user-centered design and feasibility testing study. JMIR Form Res. 2020;4(9):e18169. https://doi.org/10.2196/18169. PMID: 32924953; PMCID: PMC7522728.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ko Y, Hwang JM, Baek SH. The development of a mobile application for older adults for rehabilitation instructions after hip fracture surgery. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2021;25(12):21514593211006692. https://doi.org/10.1177/21514593211006693.PMID:35186422;PMCID:PMC8848083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kalron A, Tawil H, Peleg-Shani S, Vatine JJ. Effect of telerehabilitation on mobility in people after hip surgery: a pilot feasibility study. Int J Rehabil Res. 2018;41(3):244–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000296. PMID: 29794545.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Haggerty JL, Reid RJ, Freeman GK, Starfield BH, Adair CE, McKendry R. Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ. 2003;327(7425):1219–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7425.1219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Steele Gray C, Barnsley J, et al. Using information communication technology in models of integrated community-based primary health care: learning from the iCOACH case studies. Implement Sci. 2018;13:87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Singh H, Tang T, Steele Gray C, Kokorelias K, Thombs R, Plett D, Heffernan M, Jarach CM, Armas A, Law S, Cunningham HV, Nie JX, Ellen ME, Thavorn K, Nelson M. Recommendations for the design and delivery of transitions-focused digital health interventions: rapid review. JMIR Aging. 2022;5(2):e35929. https://doi.org/10.2196/35929. 10.2196/35929. PMID: 35587874; PMCID: PMC9164100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Topol E. The Topol review: preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. London: Health Education England; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Kaitryn Campbell, MLIS, MSc (St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton/McMaster University) for peer review of the Medline search strategy.

Funding

Funding was received from the Bruyère Academic Medical Organization (BAMO) Innovation fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Affiliate Investigator, Bruyère Research Institute, 451, Smyth Road, RGN 3239, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada

    Chantal Backman

  2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada

    Steve Papp

  3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 43 Bruyère St, Ottawa, ON, K1N 5C8, Canada

    Anne Harley & Veronique French-Merkley

  4. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada

    Becky Skidmore

  5. The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada

    Maeghn Green

  6. Geriatric Rehabilitation, Bruyère Continuing Care, 43 Bruyère St, Ottawa, ON, K1N 5C8, Canada

    Soha Shah

  7. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada

    Randa Berdusco & Paul E. Beaulé

  8. School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451, Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada

    Stéphane Poitras

Authors
  1. Chantal Backman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve Papp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Harley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Becky Skidmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maeghn Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Soha Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Randa Berdusco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stéphane Poitras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Paul E. Beaulé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Veronique French-Merkley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CB contributed to the first draft of the manuscript. All authors (CB, SP, AH, BS, SP, MG, SS, RB, PEB, VFM) were involved in the design of the scoping review. BS was responsible for the literature search. CB conducted the literature search and the data synthesis. All authors (CB, SP, AH, BS, SP, MG, SS, RB, PEB, VFM) contributed to the revision of the manuscript. CB is the guarantor of the review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chantal Backman.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Appendix 1.

Search strategies.

Additional file 2: Appendix 2.

Excluded studies (n=25).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Backman, C., Papp, S., Harley, A. et al. Patient-clinician digital health interventions for the hip fracture population: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 23, 1052 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09784-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09784-y

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us