BackgroundHip fracture is a common injury in the geriatric population. Despite surgical repair and subsequent rehabilitation programmes, functional recovery is often limited, particularly in individuals with multi-morbidity. This leads to high care dependency and subsequent use of healthcare services. Fear of falling has a negative influence on recovery after hip fracture, due to avoidance of activity and subsequent restriction in mobility. Although fear of falling is highly prevalent after hip fracture, no structured treatment programme is currently available. This trial will evaluate whether targeted treatment of fear of falling in geriatric rehabilitation after hip fracture using a multi-component cognitive behavioural intervention (FIT-HIP), is feasible and (cost) effective in reducing fear of falling and associated activity restriction and thereby improves physical functioning.Methods/designThis multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted among older patients with hip fracture and fear of falling who are admitted to a multidisciplinary inpatient geriatric rehabilitation programme in eleven post-acute geriatric rehabilitation units. Fifteen participants will be recruited from each site. Recruitment sites will be allocated by computer randomisation to either the control group, receiving usual care, or to the intervention group receiving the FIT-HIP intervention in addition to usual care. The FIT-HIP intervention is conducted by physiotherapists and will be embedded in usual care. It consists of various elements of cognitive behavioural therapy, including guided exposure to feared activities (that are avoided by the participants). Participants and outcome assessors are blinded to group allocation. Follow-up measurements will be performed at 3 and 6 months after discharge from geriatric rehabilitation. (Cost)-effectiveness and feasibility of the intervention will be evaluated. Primary outcome measures are fear of falling and mobility.DiscussionTargeted treatment of fear of falling may improve recovery and physical and social functioning after hip fracture, thereby offering benefits for patients and reducing healthcare costs. Results of this study will provide insight into whether fear of falling is modifiable in the (geriatric) rehabilitation after hip fracture and whether the intervention is feasible.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register: NTR 5695.

Objectives: Fear of falling (FoF) is common after hip fracture and can impede functional recovery because of activity restriction. The Fear of falling InTervention in HIP fracture geriatric rehabilitation (FIT-HIP intervention) was designed to target FoF and consequently to improve mobility. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the FIT-HIP intervention in patients with FoF in geriatric rehabilitation (GR) after hip fracture. Design, setting, and participants: This cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in 11 post-acute GR units in the Netherlands (2016)(2017). Six clusters were assigned to the intervention group, 5 to the usual care group. We included 78 patients with hip fracture and FoF (aged !65 years; 39 per group). Intervention(s): The FIT-HIP intervention is a multicomponent cognitive behavioral intervention conducted by physiotherapists, embedded in usual care in GR. The FIT-HIP intervention was compared to usual care in GR. Measurements: FoF was assessed with the Falls Efficacy ScaleeInternational (FES-I) and mobility, with the Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA). Data were collected at baseline, discharge, and 3 and 6 months postdischarge from GR. Primary endpoints were change scores at discharge. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the treatment effect. Results: No significant between-group differences were observed for primary outcome measures. With the usual care group as reference, the FES-I estimated difference between mean change scores was 3.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) À1.0, 7.5, P ¼ .13] at discharge from GR; À4.1 (95% CI e11.8, 3.6, P ¼ .29) after 3 months; and À2.8 (95% CI e10.0, 4.4, P ¼ .44) after 6 months. POMA estimated difference was À0.3 (95% CI e6.5, 5.8, P ¼ .90). Conclusion/Implications: The FIT-HIP intervention was not effective in reducing FoF. Possibly FoF (shortly) after hip fracture can to some extent be appropriate. This may imply the study was not able to accurately identify and accordingly treat FoF that is maladaptive (reflective of disproportionate anxiety).

Objectives: Coping strategies may play an important role as facilitator or barrier for functional recovery after hip fracture. This study explored 1] active and passive coping strategies in hip fracture patients within inpatient geriatric rehabilitation (GR) 2] the association of these coping strategies with depression, anxiety, pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) Method: Secondary data analysis (FIT-HIP trial). Participants were patients with hip fracture, aged 65þ years, admitted to post-acute GR units. Coping was assessed using the 'Active Tackling' and 'Passive Reacting' subscale of Utrecht Coping List (UCL). Depression, anxiety, pain and HRQoL was assessed using GDS-8, HADS-A, NPRS and EQ5D-VAS. Based on UCL norm tables-for both subscales-we dichotomized the group into (extremely) high use of this coping strategy i.e. 'predominantly active coping' (PAC), and 'predominantly passive coping' (PPC); versus their corresponding 'residual groups', i.e. the remaining participants. Results: 72 participants were included. Participants mostly used active coping (PAC: 33.3%), however those engaging in passive coping (23.6%) had significantly more depression and anxiety symptoms (GDS-8 ! 3: 31.1% respectively 9.1%, p ¼ 0.040; HADS-A ! 7: 58.8% vs 10.9%; p ¼ 0.00). Conclusion: Active tackling and passive reacting coping strategies are used by up to one-third of patients with recent hip fracture. Passive coping was associated with more symptoms of depression and anxiety, which in turn may influence rehabilitation negatively. Screening of (passive) coping strategies could contribute to prompt identification of hip fracture patients at risk for negative health outcomes.

ObjectivesTo examine the course of fear of falling (FoF) up to 1 year after hip fracture, including the effect of prefracture FoF on the course.DesignObservational cohort study with assessment of FoF at 6, 12 and 52 weeks after hip fracture.SettingHaaglanden Medical Centre, the Netherlands.Participants444 community-dwelling adults aged 70 years and older, admitted to hospital with a hip fracture.Main outcome measureShort Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I), with a cut-off score ≥11 to define elevated FoF levels.ResultsSix weeks after hip fracture the study population-based mean FES-I was located around the cut-off value of 11, and levels decreased only marginally over time. One year after fracture almost one-third of the population had FoF (FES-I ≥11). Although the group with prefracture FoF (42.6%) had slightly elevated FES-I levels during the entire follow-up, the effect was not statistically significant. Patients with persistent FoF at 6 and 12 weeks after fracture (26.8%) had the highest FES-I levels, with a mean well above the cut-off value during the entire follow-up. For the majority of patients in this group, FoF is still present 1 year after fracture (84.9%).ConclusionsIn this study population, representing patients in relative good health condition that are able to attend the outpatient follow-up at 6 and 12 weeks, FoF as defined by an FES-I score ≥11 was common within the first year after hip fracture. Patients with persistent FoF at 12 weeks have the highest FES-I levels in the first year after fracture, and for most of these patients the FoF remains. For timely identification of patients who may benefit from intervention, we recommend structural assessment of FoF in the first 12 weeks after fracture.

Background This study describes the process evaluation of an intervention developed to reduce fear of falling (FoF) after hip fracture, within an inpatient geriatric rehabilitation setting. This ‘FIT-HIP intervention’ is a multicomponent cognitive behavioral intervention, conducted by physiotherapists and embedded in usual care in geriatric rehabilitation in the Netherlands. A previous study (cluster randomized controlled trial) showed no beneficial effects of this intervention when compared to usual care. The aim of this study was to gain insight into factors related to the intervention process that may have influenced the effectiveness of the intervention. Methods This process evaluation was conducted using an observational prospective study design. Based on quantitative and qualitative data derived from session logs, evaluation questionnaires and interviews, we addressed: 1] recruitment and reach; 2] performance according to protocol; 3] patients’ adherence; and 4] opinions of patients and facilitators on the intervention. Participants in this study were: a) patients from 6 geriatric rehabilitation units, who were invited to participate in the intervention (39 adults aged ≥65 years with hip fracture and FoF) and; b) intervention facilitators (14 physiotherapists and 8 psychologists who provide coaching to the physiotherapists). Results Thirty-six patients completed the intervention during inpatient geriatric rehabilitation. Apart from cognitive restructuring and telephonic booster (which was not provided to all patients), the intervention was performed to a fair degree in accordance with protocol. Patients’ adherence to the intervention was very good, and patients rated the intervention positively (average 8.1 on a scale 0–10). Although most facilitators considered the intervention feasible, a limited level of FoF (possibly related to timing of intervention), and physiotherapists’ limited experience with cognitive restructuring were identified as important barriers to performing the intervention according to protocol. Conclusions The FIT-HIP intervention was only partly feasible, which may explain the lack of effectiveness in reducing FoF. To improve the intervention’s feasibility, we recommend selecting patients with maladaptive FoF (i.e. leading to activity restriction), being more flexible in the timing of the intervention, and providing more support to the physiotherapists in conducting cognitive restructuring. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register: NTR5695 (7 March 2016).