Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Belitung Nursing Journal logoLink to Belitung Nursing Journal
. 2023 Aug 28;9(4):349–358. doi: 10.33546/bnj.2759

Factors influencing mobility among people post-surgery for hip fractures: A cross-sectional study

Chanipa Yoryuenyong 1, Chanokporn Jitpanya 1,*, Siriphan Sasat 1
PMCID: PMC10461159  PMID: 37645578

Abstract

Background

After hip fracture surgery, patients often experience complications and a decline in mobility, leading to physical disability and increased dependency on caregivers. This may result in reduced independence, institutionalization, and higher mortality rates. However, there is limited research on mobility and its influencing factors in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery in Thailand.

Objective

This study aimed to determine the factors influencing mobility in patients with fractured hips within one year after surgery.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 143 randomly selected participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery between August 2022 to February 2023. Mobility and its influencing factors were measured using standardized questionnaires, including the De Morton Mobility Index, Parker Mobility Scale, Charlson Comorbidity Index, General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition, Groningen Orthopedic Social Support Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale, Pain Rating Scale, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression were utilized for data analysis.

Results

The mean mobility score for the patients was 48.86 out of 100 (SD = 17.89). The study found that comorbidity (β = -0.156, p = 0.009), cognitive function (β = 0.310, p <0.001), social support (β = 0.145, p = 0.010), pain (β = -0.176, p = 0.004), fatigue (β = -0.249, p <0.001), and sleep (β = -0.169, p = 0.009) collectively influenced mobility in patients after hip fracture surgery, explaining 61.8% of the variance (R2 = 0.618; F = 36.598; p <0.001).

Conclusion

The study’s results provide valuable insights for nurses to target these modifiable factors to enhance patients’ mobility. However, it is essential to note that patients with comorbidity and poor cognitive function may face difficulty maintaining mobility. Nurses should be attentive to these patients and provide appropriate management. Additionally, early rehabilitation should be initiated promptly to optimize outcomes.

Keywords: cognition, comorbidity, fatigue, hip fracture, mobility, pain, sleep, social support

Background

Hip fractures continue to pose a significant global health concern, particularly among older adults. The aging demographic has led to a potential increase in the number of patients suffering from hip fractures (Kanis et al., 2012; Sucharitpongpan et al., 2019; Wongtriratanachai et al., 2013). Notably, in Thailand, there has been a steady annual rise of 2% in the incidence rate of fractured hips. According to projections by Wongtriratanachai et al. (2013), the number of patients with hip fractures in Thailand may increase from 181.0 per 100,000 in 2006 to 264.6 per 100,000 in 2025 and to 436.1 per 100,000 in 2050.

Following a hip fracture, a significant proportion of patients, ranging from 82% to 90%, require hospitalization for surgery with the primary aim of restoring their mobility status or achieving rapid post-operative mobilization (Sucharitpongpan et al., 2019). However, despite surgical interventions, evidence indicates that individuals with hip fractures often experience a decline in mobility. Research conducted by Steihaug et al. (2018) revealed that many patients encountered impaired mobility, with over 50% of hip fracture patients failing to regain their pre-fracture mobility levels (Hansson et al., 2015; Vochteloo et al., 2013).

Even after being discharged from the hospital, most patients, as reported by Zaslavsky et al. (2015), did not experience significant improvement in their mobility. Many had to rely on walking aids, some could only sit on the bed, others became bedridden, and a few even had to be transferred to nursing homes (Münter et al., 2018). This impaired mobility can have far-reaching consequences, leading to decreased self-reliance, limited physical functioning, an increased risk of injuries, frequent hospitalizations, and even higher mortality rates (Dyer et al., 2016; Jennison & Yarlagadda, 2019).

Mobility decline emerged as a prevalent nursing diagnosis observed in the majority of patients, and it held significant importance in nursing care. Recognizing the potential negative consequences associated with impaired mobility, it became essential for nurses to comprehend the concept of mobility and the various factors influencing it. From the first day post-surgery until the patients’ discharge, nursing efforts played a crucial role, such as early ambulation, implementing fall prevention strategies, and encouraging patients to engage in activities like re-positioning, bed and chair transfers, standing, and walking (Thai Orthopaedic Nurses Society, 2018). By providing such comprehensive care, nurses could contribute to the recovery of their patients’ former mobility levels.

Mobility in patients after hip fracture surgery is influenced by various factors, as revealed by Gonzalez Zabaleta et al. (2016), Ariza-Vega et al. (2017), Mueller-Schotte et al. (2016), and Promchat et al. (2015). These studies highlighted the impact of comorbidity, cognitive function, social support, fatigue, and sleep quality on mobility. However, there is limited research on mobility and its influencing factors, specifically in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery in Thailand. Only a few studies have focused on this aspect, and the findings have been concerning. For instance, Roobsoong et al. (2020) reported that the walking ability of patients after hip fracture surgery was lower than their pre-hip fracture levels, with only 17.3% being able to walk independently one year after surgery (Pipatyaokul, 2017). Similarly, another study found that one year after surgery, only 26.5% of patients could return to their pre-fracture level of mobility (Adulkasem et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the existing studies have only explored bidirectional associations between these influencing factors and mobility without simultaneously examining their combined effects on a specified outcome. Thus, our current study aimed to address this gap by describing mobility and identifying the factors influencing mobility in patients after hip fracture surgery. The findings from our research would be invaluable in developing nursing strategies to enhance mobility and improve the quality of care for patients with fractured hips.

Our study was guided by the Theory of Unpleasant Symptoms of Lenz and Pugh (2014), which consists of three main elements: symptom experience, influencing factors, and performances. Symptom experience in this context emphasizes the subjective perception of symptoms rather than just objective observation of signs. Previous research has indicated that hip fracture patients often experience pain, which can significantly impact their ability to walk. Gheorghita et al. (2018) found that pain in these patients was associated with a reduced tolerance for walking. Münter et al. (2018) also observed that patients with fractured hips may suffer limited movement and mobility due to pain. Furthermore, Salpakoski et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional study revealing that patients with severe pain had a higher risk of experiencing a decline in mobility compared to those with less or no pain (OR = 3.5, p <0.05). Moreover, Foss et al. (2009) discovered a significantly negative correlation between functional mobility and pain related to hip flexion (r = -0.43, p <0.001) as well as pain during walking (r = -0.36, p <0.01).

Patients who have undergone hip fracture surgery commonly experience sleep problems, as evidenced by various studies. Approximately 36% of these patients reported having sleeping difficulties (Cho et al., 2020). Furthermore, a significant number, 78% of patients, had abnormal sleep durations (Kuo et al., 2016). On average, patients experienced 5.4 hours of sleep per night, with around 5.3 awakenings (Reppas Rindlisbacher et al., 2021).

Moreover, the duration of sleep has been found to have an impact on mobility. Patients who slept for 9 hours or more had a decline in walking speed (p <0.05). On the other hand, those with sleep durations of ≤6 hours were associated with increased mobility limitations (OR = 3.62, 95% CI = 1.40–9.37). Poor sleep quality can lead to nocturnal arterial oxygen saturation, which, in turn, affects balance and contributes to mobility limitations (Stenholm et al., 2010).

Between 20% to 40% of patients who undergo hip fracture surgery experience fatigue, often caused by factors such as blood loss, poor nutrition, and low hemoglobin levels. Fatigue is a major hindrance for patients in achieving independent mobility after surgery, accounting for more than 85% of cases where patients struggle to regain mobility (Münter et al., 2018). Even during rehabilitation, fatigue remains a significant problem for hip fracture patients, particularly when they return home after surgery. A study by Mueller-Schotte et al. (2016) revealed that fatigue was associated with lower mobility in these patients compared to non-fatigued individuals.

The Theory of Unpleasant Symptoms (TOUS) focuses on three main influencing factors: physiological, psychological, and situational. Comorbidity, as a physiological factor, can impact the brain and nervous system, leading to impaired mobility (King et al., 2014). Moreover, the greater the number of comorbidities, the more pronounced the impact on mobility (Tam et al., 2020). Cognitive function, as a psychological factor, is significantly correlated with mobility (Ariza-Vega et al., 2017; Lenze et al., 2004), with studies indicating that impaired cognition may lead to reduced mobility potential compared to individuals without cognitive impairment (Münter et al., 2018). Social support, as a situational factor, has been shown to predict walking and stair-climbing abilities (Shyu et al., 2010), and low social support is associated with mobility decline (Nuotio & Luukkaala, 2016).

Based on these factors, it was hypothesized that comorbidity, cognitive function, social support, fatigue, sleep quality, and pain collectively influence the mobility outcomes of patients after hip fracture surgery. Understanding the interactions between these factors will contribute to improving the management and care, ultimately enhancing their post-surgery mobility and overall recovery.

Methods

Study Design

A cross-sectional study design was employed, and the study reporting adhered to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines for cross-sectional studies as proposed by Von Elm et al. (2007).

Samples/Participants

G*Power 3.1 was utilized to calculate sample size in this study, with a power of test set at 0.80, an alpha value of 0.05, and an effect size of 0.10, which was based on the effect size reported in a previous study (Mariconda et al., 2016). Considering six independent variables, the calculated total sample size for the study was determined to be 143 participants. To achieve this sample size, a multi-stage random sampling technique was employed (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014). Firstly, three health regions were randomly selected out of the 13 regions across Thailand. Next, hospitals were categorized into three levels - advanced-level hospitals (A-level), standard-level hospitals (S-level), and middle1-level hospitals (M1-level). Each hospital level was then randomly assigned to each of the selected health regions. Subsequently, one hospital was randomly chosen from each health region. The sample size of each hospital was proportionally determined based on the total number of patients in that setting. In the final stage, potential participants were recruited using a systematic random sampling approach. Every 3rd patient in the hospital’s patient population was selected to be part of the study. Participants had to meet specific inclusion criteria, which included being aged 50 and older, having a hip fracture resulting from low-energy trauma, having undergone hip fracture surgery, and being able to communicate in Thai. Those experiencing myocardial infarction, severe psychotic disorder, and high blood pressure, and those unable to walk before the fractured hip were excluded from the study.

Instruments

Permission from the original developers was sought before using the questionnaires. Two questionnaires, the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) and the Groningen Orthopedic Social Support Scale (GOSSS), were translated from English into Thai by the primary investigator (PI) using the forward-back translation method as described by Sperber et al. (1994). To ensure content validity, all instruments were validated by five experts, comprising one physician who specialized in orthopedic surgery, two nursing professors with expertise in medical-surgical nursing (orthopedics) and adult-gerontological nursing (orthopedics), as well as two advanced practice nurses (APNs) in orthopedics. Following this validation process, the instruments were tested for reliability in a separate group of 30 Thai patients who shared similar characteristics with the main participants but were not part of the primary study. The instruments used in this study were described as follows:

Demographic and Illness Data Form

This form was used to collect information on various aspects of the participants, including participants’ gender, age, marital status, education, income, living arrangement, number of family members, family history of hip fracture, smoking status, and alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the form also gathered illness-related history, consisting of questions about family history of hip fracture, cause of the fracture, fracture type, and details of the operation. In addition, relevant clinical data were extracted from the participants’ medical charts.

De Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI)

It consisted of a 15-item scale, where eleven items were scored either 0 or 1, and four items were scored 0, 1, or 2. The total score, referred to as the raw ordinal DEMMI score, ranged from 0 to 19. However, using a conversion table, the raw DEMMI score was transformed into an interval-level DEMMI score ranging from 0 to 100. A higher score on the interval-level DEMMI indicated better mobility. It is worth noting that there was no specific cutoff point for the score. The DEMMI scale demonstrated sound psychometric properties, being reliable and valid for assessing mobility in diverse populations, including patients post-hip fracture surgery (de Morton et al., 2013). In the current study, the inter-rater reliability of the Thai-DEMMI was found to be 0.96, and the internal consistency, as tested by Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.88.

Parker Mobility Scale (PMS)

PMS was used to evaluate levels of mobility. This assessment comprised three inquiries that gauged mobility within distinct scenarios: navigating within one’s residence, egress from the residence, and shopping excursions. Each query was appraised on a scale of 0 to 3, denoting degrees of mobility (0: not at all, 1: with assistance from another person, 2: aided by an assistive device, 3: no difficulty). The cumulative score ranged from 0 to 9, as established by Parker and Palmer (1993). Internal consistency, as determined by Cronbach's alpha, yielded a robust value of 0.88. This scale was translated into Thai using the forward-only translation method (Maneesriwongul & Dixon, 2004).

Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)

It comprised 21 items representing different comorbidities (Charlson et al., 2008). The total CCI score was obtained by summing up the weights assigned to each comorbidity. A score of zero indicated the absence of comorbidities, while higher scores suggested a greater likelihood of predicted outcomes such as mortality or increased resource utilization. The total CCI scores were categorized as mild (scores of 1-2), moderate (scores of 3-4), and severe (scores ≥5) (Charlson et al., 1987). The Thai version of the CCI was translated into Thai using the International Classification of Diseases codes as a reference (Suwanno et al., 2009). The CCI had sound psychometric properties, including predictive, concurrent, and incremental validity. Additionally, it showed good inter-rater reliability, which was confirmed in the current study with an inter-rater reliability of 0.96.

General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG)

It was utilized to measure cognitive function (Brodaty et al., 2002). It consisted of nine items for patients and six items for an informant. Higher scores on the GPCOG indicated better cognitive function. However, it should be noted that low scores might be influenced by factors such as effort, language barriers, or fatigue. The GPCOG Thai version was translated into Thai using the forward-back translation method described by Griffiths et al. (2015). In the current study, the reliability of the GPCOG was tested using the KR-20 coefficient, which resulted in a value of 0.86.

Groningen Orthopedic Social Support Scale (GOSSS)

The GOSSS was used to assess social support. It consisted of twelve items, which were rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from one (“never or rarely”) to four (“often”). The total score could range from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating higher levels of social support. Regarding psychometric properties, the internal consistency of the GOSSS was sound. Van Den Akker-Scheek et al. (2004) also conducted a factor analysis on the GOSSS, revealing two factors: perceived social support and instrumental support. Regarding the reliability of the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was used, resulting in a coefficient of 0.85.

Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS)

It was used to assess fatigue severity in the study. It consisted of nine items, each rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). The total possible scores on the FSS ranged from 9 to 63, with higher scores indicating higher levels of fatigue severity. The cutoff point for indicating the presence of fatigue on the scale was set at ≥4 (Krupp et al., 1989). For the Thai version of the FSS, Sawasdee et al. (2017) translated the scale using the forward-only translation method. The reliability of the FSS was tested in the current study using Cronbach’s alpha, resulting in a coefficient of 0.82.

Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)

It was used to evaluate the quality of sleep in the study. The Thai version of the PSQI was translated using the forward-backward translation methods by Jirapramukpitak and Tanchaiswad (1997). The PSQI consisted of several components, including the duration of sleep, disturbance during sleep, sleep latency, daytime dysfunction due to sleepiness, sleep efficiency, overall sleep quality, and the use of sleep medications. Scores from each component were added together to obtain a total score. A higher total score indicated poorer sleep quality. The cutoff point for identifying poor sleep quality on the PSQI was set at ≥5 (Buysse et al., 1989). The reliability of the PSQI was assessed in this study using Cronbach’s alpha, resulting in a coefficient of 0.82.

Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)

It was used to measure pain intensity in the study. This numeric scale ranged from “0,” indicating “no pain,” to “10,” representing the “worst pain imaginable.” Higher scores on the NPRS indicated greater pain severity (McCaffery & Pasero, 1999). The test-retest reliability of the NPRS was assessed in the current study and resulted in a coefficient of 0.89.

Data Collection

Data were collected between August 2022 and February 2023. To initiate the study, an official letter was sent from the Nursing Faculty at Chulalongkorn University to the hospital directors and head nurses of the hospitals where the research was conducted. The investigators then explained the study’s purpose and methodology to potential participants. Informed consent was obtained from each participant before the data collection. The data gathering and mobility assessments were conducted in a prepared and quiet room, and each participant took approximately 30 to 45 minutes to complete.

Data Analysis

SPSS version 26.0 was employed for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for quantitative variables such as age, weight, height, and body mass index (BMI). Multiple linear regression with the enter method was used to examine the relationships between the variables. A significance level of alpha <0.05 was considered to determine statistical significance. Prior to analysis, assumptions of multiple regression were checked to ensure the validity of the results. These assumptions included normality, linearity, heteroscedasticity, independence of error terms, and multicollinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The data was found to have no missing values or outliers. Cook’s distance, a measure of influence on regression estimates, ranged from 0.000 to 0.096, and no case had an outlier value exceeding 1.00. These findings indicate that the data met the necessary assumptions, ensuring the reliability of the regression analysis.

It is noteworthy that mobility assessment in this study used both DEMMI and PMS instruments. However, solely data from DEMMI was employed for regression analysis purposes, whereas data from PMS was exclusively utilized for descriptive purposes.

Ethical Considerations

The Ethics Review Committee of Chulalongkorn University approved the study with COA No. 137/65 in June 2022. Before enrolling in the current study, all participants provided their informed consent by signing consent forms.

Results

Description of the Participants

The study achieved a response rate of 100% from the participants. The results revealed that the mean age of the participants was 74.57 (SD = 10.00). The majority of the participants were female (76.2%), married (80.4%), unemployed (86.7%), and had education at or below the bachelor’s level (74.8%). Almost all of them lived in extended families (97.9%) and identified as Buddhist (99.3%) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of participants (N = 143)

Characteristics n % Mean (SD), Min - Max
Age (years)
50-59 (adult) 15 10.5 74.57 (10.00), 52-97
60-69 (young-old) 31 21.7
70-79 (middle-old) 42 29.3
80 and older (oldest-old) 55 38.5
Gender
Male 34 23.8
Female 109 76.2
Marital Status
Single 28 19.6
Married 115 80.4
Education
No education 21 14.7
lower or equal to bachelor degree 107 74.8
higher than bachelor degree 15 10.5
Living Condition
With family members 140 97.9
With significant others (not family members) 3 2.1
Open in a new tab

As seen in Table 2, the patients’ BMIs had a mean of 22.1 kg/m2 (SD = 3.8). The average time after surgery was 6.66 months (SD = 3.45). In terms of fracture types, intracapsular hip fractures were the most common (55.9%). Approximately 59.4% of patients underwent arthroplasty as a treatment for their hip fractures. Regarding the causes of hip fractures, falls accounted for the majority (91%). Among the fall-related cases, slipping was the leading cause, contributing to 49.7% of the fractures. The average length of stay in the hospital was 8.80 days (SD = 3.58).

Table 2.

Participants’ clinical characteristics (N = 143)

Clinical Characteristics n % Mean (SD), Min - Max
BMI (kg/m2)
<18.5 (Underweight) 22 15.4 22.10 (3.80), 14.29 - 32.87
18.5-24.9 (Healthy weight) 90 62.9
25 - 29.9 (Overweight) 28 19.6
≥30 (Obese) 3 2.1
Types of Fracture
Neck femur fracture 80 55.9
Intertrochanteric fracture 62 43.4
Subtrochanteric fracture 1 0.7
Types of Orthopedic Surgery
Total hip arthroplasty 21 14.7
Hemi hip arthroplasty 64 44.7
Internal fixation 58 40.6
Causes of Hip Fractures
Fall
 Slipping 71 49.7
 Tripping 42 29.4
 Fall from chair/bed 10 7.0
 Loss of balance 4 2.8
 Being attacked by a person/dog 3 2.1
Fainting 6 4.2
Leg weakness 7 4.8
Length of Stay (days)
1-7 days 58 40.6 8.80 (3.58), 3-26
8-14 days 73 51
15-30 days 12 8.4
Open in a new tab

Note. BMI (kg/m2) according to World Health Organization (2023)

Description of Mobility Measured at 2 Points of Time (Pre-Hip and Post-Hip Fracture Surgery) using PMS

According to Figure 1, after hip fracture surgery, the percentage of participants who were able to walk during shopping decreased to 25.2% (compared to 71.3% before the fracture). Additionally, the percentage of participants who were able to walk outdoors also reduced to 21.7% (compared to 22.4% before the fracture). In contrast, the percentage of participants who were able to walk only indoors increased to 53.1% (compared to 6.3% before the fracture).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Description of mobility measured by the Parker Mobility Scale

Figure 2 illustrates the changes in participants’ mobility before and after hip fracture. Before the hip fracture, 72.0% of the participants could walk independently without aids. However, after hip fracture surgery, this percentage dropped to 20.0%. On the other hand, the percentage of participants who required walking aids increased from 28.0% before the fracture to 72.7% after surgery. Furthermore, after surgery, 4.2% of participants relied on a wheelchair for mobility, and 1.4% were bedridden.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Percentages of the participants’ mobility with or without any aids

Description of Mobility Measured by the DEMMI

The mean total raw score for DEMMI was 11.25 (SD = 4.40), whereas the mean converted DEMMI score was 48.86 (SD = 17.89). Scores ranged from 0 to 19 for the total raw score and 8 to 85 for the converted score. Different mobility categories had specific mean scores and standard deviations (Table 3).

Table 3.

Possible and actual range, mean, and standard deviation of mobility in study participants (N = 143)

Mobility Possible Range Actual Range Mean SD
Bed (3 items) 0-4 1-4 3.69 0.63
Chair (3 items) 0-4 0-4 2.94 0.95
Static balance (4 items) 0-4 0-4 1.74 1.18
Walking (2 items) 0-4 0-4 2.03 1.36
Dynamic balance (3 items) 0-3 0-3 0.85 0.93
Total raw score of patients 0-19 1-18 11.25 4.40
DEMMI score (converted) 0-100 8-85 48.86 17.89
Open in a new tab

Description of Influencing Factors of Mobility

Regarding participants’ comorbidities, the mean CCI score was 2.14 (SD = 1.76), and 80.4% had comorbidities. Concerning cognitive function, the majority of participants (85.3%) experienced cognitive problems, with 37.8% having a cognitive impairment and 47.5% experiencing mild cognitive impairment. Regarding social support, participants reported good support, with a mean GOSSS score of 39.2 (SD = 4.91). As for unpleasant symptoms, such as pain, 47.5% of participants experienced mild pain, 32.2% perceived pain at a moderate level, and 1.4% reported pain as “worst pain”. Nearly half of the participants (46.9%) reported experiencing “fatigue,” with an FSS score ≥4. Furthermore, 88.8% of participants complained about “poor sleep quality,” with a mean PSQI score equal to 10.15 (SD = 4.49) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Description of influencing factors of mobility (N = 143)

Variables n % Mean (SD), Min - Max
Comorbidity
No comorbidity (0 score) 28 19.5 2.14 (1.76), 0-6
Low comorbidity (1-2 score) 67 46.9
Moderate comorbidity (3-4 score) 31 21.7
High comorbidity (5 score) 17 11.9
GPCOG
Cognitive impairment (0 to 4 scores) 54 37.8 5.55 (2.46), 1-9
Mild cognitive impairment (5 to 8 scores) 68 47.5
No cognitive impairment (9 scores) 21 14.7
Pain
No pain (0) 27 18.9 2.66 (1.84), 0-7
Mild level (1-3) 68 47.5
Moderate level (4-6) 46 32.2
Severe level (7-10) 2 1.4
Fatigue
FSS score <4 (no fatigue) 76 53.1 3.75 (1.18), 1-7
FSS score ≥4 (fatigue) 67 46.9
Sleep
PSQI score <5 16 11.2 10.15 (4.49), 2-20
PSQI score ≥5 127 88.8
Open in a new tab

Regression Analysis of Factors Influencing Mobility

The analysis showed that a combination of comorbidity, cognitive function, social support, pain, fatigue, and sleep jointly accounted for 61.8% of the variance in mobility among the participants (R2 = 0.618; F = 36.598; p <0.001). This suggests that these factors have the potential to predict the participants’ mobility outcomes (Table 5).

Table 5.

Regression analysis of factors influencing mobility in participants post-hip fracture surgery

Model Unstandardized Coefficients
 Standardized Coefficients
 t p-value
B Standard Error Beta
(Constant) 44.619 9.411 4.741 <0.001
Comorbidity -1.591 0.597 -0.156 -2.664 0.009
Cognitive function 2.258 0.436 0.310 5.178 <0.001
Social support 0.527 0.201 0.145 2.616 0.010
Pain -1.708 0.576 -0.176 -2.964 0.004
Fatigue -0.419 0.112 -0.249 -3.746 <0.001
Sleep -0.673 0.255 -0.169 -2.644 0.009
R2 = 0.618, F = 36.598, df = 6, 136, p <0.001, adjust R2 = 0.601
Open in a new tab

Discussion

The findings revealed that the mobility in patients after hip fracture surgery significantly declined compared to their pre-fracture state, as measured by the PMS. Before the hip fracture, 70% of the patients were able to walk independently, but after the surgery, only 21% retained this ability without using walking aids. These findings are consistent with a previous study conducted by Hao et al. (2020), where it was observed that approximately one month after surgery, only 16% of hip fracture patients could walk independently. Around 54% of the patients required walking aids and assistance, 23% were unable to walk, and 7% were bedridden or unable to move.

Furthermore, when mobility was assessed using the DEMMI, the scores obtained in the current study were notably low, with a mean score of 48.86 on a scale of 0-100. A similar observation was made by Rosendahl-Riise et al. (2020) in their research on patients post-hip fracture surgery, where mobility scores were also found to be low. This suggests that after surgery, most fractured hip patients experienced a significant decline in their mobility levels, losing at least one level of their previous mobility ability.

Factors influencing mobility were identified in the current study. Comorbidity was found to be a significant influencing factor in mobility. Similarly, Gonzalez Zabaleta et al. (2016) conducted a prospective study and reported comorbidity as a predicting factor of mobility (OR = 1.407, p <0.05). Tam et al. (2020) also observed that for every 1 unit increase in comorbidity score, the likelihood of walking independently decreased by 33%.

Pain, especially hip fracture-related pain, was another influencing factor of mobility in the current study. Foss et al. (2009) emphasized that patients experiencing pain were at greater physical risk, leading to limited function ability, reduced walking distance, and level of function. Kristensen (2013) mentioned that some patients experienced pain during rehabilitation while sitting or walking, which could be a result of tissue damage around the prosthesis or surgical site, especially in trochanteric fractures, and loss of knee-extension strength after surgery.

Our study also identified cognitive function as an influencing factor in mobility. Tam et al. (2020) highlighted that poor cognitive function could be a barrier to rehabilitation and hinder the completion of physiotherapy. Ariza-Vega et al. (2017) reported that cognitive function was one of the factors influencing post-operative mobility among patients after hip fracture. Mariconda et al. (2016) indicated that cognitive scores significantly influenced mobility (R2 3-5%, p <0.001).

Social support emerged as another factor influencing mobility, consistent with previous studies. Nuotio and Luukkaala (2016) and Levasseur et al. (2015) also found that social support positively influenced mobility. In Thai culture, filial piety and family support are crucial in encouraging patients’ participation in rehabilitation (Tan et al., 2011). High social support enhances post-operative recovery and achieving recovery goals (Stott-Eveneshen et al., 2017).

Fatigue was a significant factor affecting mobility. Patients experienced tiredness and exhaustion involving muscle weakness, which affected various physical capacities, including walking and other activities of daily living (Pope, 2020). A significant number of patients reported experiencing fatigue and feeling tired, leading them to take rest for hours (Alsén & Brink, 2013). Mueller-Schotte et al. (2016) observed that patients with fatigue symptoms had impaired mobility compared to non-fatigued individuals.

Finally, sleep also played a role in influencing mobility. Agmon et al. (2016) found that sleep disorders were associated with decreased walking speed and mobility. Sleep problems might increase inflammation and insulin resistance (Van Cauter, 2011). The alterations in immunology, metabolic, and endocrinologic systems, along with the loss of muscle strength caused by sleep problems, directly led to functional decline (Barzilay et al., 2009). Additionally, decreased sleep duration was shown to affect femoral muscle strength after hip fracture, further impacting mobility (Kuo et al., 2016).

Implications of the Study for Nursing Practice and Healthcare Policy

Implications for nursing practice are evident from the study findings. Professional nurses should implement effective interventions to address mobility enhancement, pain management, fatigue management, sleep improvement, patient education, regular assessment, and social support integration. These interventions can potentially modify the influencing factors of mobility in patients after hip fracture surgery. Early rehabilitation is vital for patients with comorbidities and cognitive issues, and regular home visits can provide essential support for successful mobility recovery. In addition, interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary, given the complex nature of factors influencing mobility. Nurses should collaborate with other healthcare professionals, including physical therapists, occupational therapists, and physicians, to develop comprehensive care plans to enhance mobility.

The findings also highlight the need for further studies in this area. While the current study identified important factors influencing mobility, other variables might be yet to be explored. Conducting additional research will deepen our understanding and pave the way for more targeted and effective interventions.

Furthermore, for healthcare policy, this study’s findings emphasize the crucial role of policymakers, particularly the Ministry of Public Health, in shaping healthcare policies and action plans. Policies should take into account variables such as comorbidity, cognitive function, pain, fatigue, and sleep quality to enhance mobility post-hip fracture surgery. By addressing these factors in healthcare policy, healthcare providers can improve patient outcomes and quality of life after hip fracture surgery.

Limitations of the Study

The participants in this study were recruited from the outpatient department, which may have resulted in some frail hip fracture patients not being included in the sample. These patients might have found it inconvenient to visit the hospital for outpatient care. Therefore, when generalizing the study findings, caution should be exercised, as the sample may not fully represent the entire population of hip fracture patients, particularly those who are less likely to access outpatient services.

Conclusion

The study revealed that comorbidity, cognitive function, fatigue, pain, sleep quality, and social support significantly influenced mobility among individuals with fractured hips post-surgery. Future research should focus on testing the effectiveness of interventions and therapies that target and modify social support, pain management, sleep quality, and fatigue in this population. Additionally, conducting research with interdisciplinary health personnel is essential that could lead to improved outcomes, including enhanced mobility, quality of life, and overall health outcomes for these patients.

Acknowledgment

The authors extend their heartfelt gratitude to all the participants who made valuable contributions to this study. Additionally, appreciation is given to the National Research Council of Thailand for providing the funding support that made this research possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

There was no potential conflict of interest in this study.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) NO. N41A660170. Recipient: Miss Chanipa Yoryuenyong.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to the conception, design, and completion of this study and have approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. Specifically, CY and CJ made substantial contributions to the conception and research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. They were involved in drafting the manuscript and critically revising it for important scholarly content. CY, CJ, and SS provided final approval of the version to be published and have agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any potential issues have been thoroughly investigated and resolved.

Authors’ Biographies

Chanipa Yoryuenyong, MNS, RN is a PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Nursing, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Chanokporn Jitpanya, PhD, RN is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Nursing, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Siriphan Sasat, PhD, RN is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Nursing, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declaration of Use of AI in Scientific Writing

None to declare.

References

  1. Adulkasem, N., Phinyo, P., Khorana, J., Pruksakorn, D., & Apivatthakakul, T. (2021). Prognostic factors of 1-year postoperative functional outcomes of older patients with intertrochanteric fractures in Thailand: A retrospective cohort study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6896. 10.3390/ijerph18136896 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Agmon, M., Shochat, T., & Kizony, R. (2016). Sleep quality is associated with walking under dual-task, but not single-task performance. Gait & Posture, 49, 127-131. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.06.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alsén, P., & Brink, E. (2013). Fatigue after myocardial infarction–a two‐year follow‐up study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22(11-12), 1647-1652. 10.1111/jocn.12114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariza-Vega, P., Lozano-Lozano, M., Olmedo-Requena, R., Martín-Martín, L., & Jiménez-Moleón, J. J. (2017). Influence of cognitive impairment on mobility recovery of patients with hip fracture. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 96(2), 109-115. 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barzilay, J. I., Cotsonis, G. A., Walston, J., Schwartz, A. V., Satterfield, S., Miljkovic, I., Harris, T. B., & Health, A. B. C. S. (2009). Insulin resistance is associated with decreased quadriceps muscle strength in nondiabetic adults aged ≥ 70 years. Diabetes Care, 32(4), 736-738. 10.2337/dc08-1781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brodaty, H., Pond, D., Kemp, N. M., Luscombe, G., Harding, L., Berman, K., & Huppert, F. A. (2002). The GPCOG: A new screening test for dementia designed for general practice. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50(3), 530-534. 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50122.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buysse, D. J., Reynolds Iii, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Research, 28(2), 193-213. 10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Charlson, M. E., Charlson, R. E., Peterson, J. C., Marinopoulos, S. S., Briggs, W. M., & Hollenberg, J. P. (2008). The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(12), 1234-1240. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(5), 373-383. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cho, M.-R., Song, S.-K., & Ryu, C.-H. (2020). Sleep disturbance strongly related to the development of postoperative delirium in proximal femoral fracture patients aged 60 or older. Hip & Pelvis, 32(2), 93-98. https://doi.org/10.5371%2Fhp.2020.32.2.93 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. de Morton, N. A., Harding, K. E., Taylor, N. F., & Harrison, G. (2013). Validity of the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) for measuring the mobility of patients with hip fracture during rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(4), 325-333. 10.3109/09638288.2012.705220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dyer, S. M., Crotty, M., Fairhall, N., Magaziner, J., Beaupre, L. A., Cameron, I. D., Sherrington, C., & Fragility Fracture Network Rehabilitation Research Special Interest Group . (2016). A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatrics, 16, 1-18. 10.1186/s12877-016-0332-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Foss, N. B., Kristensen, M. T., Palm, H., & Kehlet, H. (2009). Postoperative pain after hip fracture is procedure specific. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 102(1), 111-116. 10.1093/bja/aen345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gheorghita, A., Webster, F., Thielke, S., & Sale, J. E. M. (2018). Long-term experiences of pain after a fragility fracture. Osteoporosis International, 29, 1093-1104. 10.1007/s00198-018-4399-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gonzalez Zabaleta, J., Pita Fernandez, S., Seoane Pillado, T., Lopez Calvino, B., & Gonzalez Zabaleta, J. L. (2016). Comorbidity as a predictor of mortality and mobility after hip fracture. Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 16(5), 561-569. 10.1111/ggi.12510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Griffiths, J., Putthinoi, S., & Pongsuksri, M. (2015). General practitioner assessment of cognition (Thai version) validity and reliability. Asian Journal of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 10(1), 62-62. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hansson, S., Rolfson, O., Åkesson, K., Nemes, S., Leonardsson, O., & Rogmark, C. (2015). Complications and patient-reported outcome after hip fracture. A consecutive annual cohort study of 664 patients. Injury, 46(11), 2206-2211. 10.1016/j.injury.2015.07.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hao, L., Carson, J. L., Schlussel, Y., Noveck, H., & Shapses, S. A. (2020). Vitamin D deficiency is associated with reduced mobility after hip fracture surgery: A prospective study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 112(3), 613-618. 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jennison, T., & Yarlagadda, R. (2019). A case series of patients change in mobility following a hip fracture. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 29, 87-90. 10.1007/s00590-018-2267-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jirapramukpitak, T., & Tanchaiswad, W. (1997). Sleep disturbances among nurses of Songklanagarind Hospital. Journal of the Psychiatric Association of Thailand, 42(3), 123-132. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kanis, J. A., Oden, A., McCloskey, E. V., Johansson, H., Wahl, D. A., Cooper, C., Epidemiology, I. O. F. W. G. o., & Quality of, L. (2012). A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporosis International, 23, 2239-2256. 10.1007/s00198-012-1964-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. King, L. A., Priest, K. C., Nutt, J., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Melnick, M., & Horak, F. (2014). Comorbidity and functional mobility in persons with Parkinson disease. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(11), 2152-2157. 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.07.396 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kristensen, M. T. (2013). Hip fracture− related pain strongly influences functional performance of patients with an intertrochanteric fracture upon discharge from the hospital. PM&R, 5(2), 135-141. 10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Krupp, L. B., LaRocca, N. G., Muir-Nash, J., & Steinberg, A. D. (1989). The fatigue severity scale: Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Archives of Neurology, 46(10), 1121-1123. 10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuo, W.-Y., Shyu, Y.-I. L., Wang, J.-S., Chen, M.-C., Wu, C.-C., & Huang, Y.-F. (2016). The impact of sleep duration on recovery post-hip fracture among older diabetic adults in Taiwan. Geriatric Nursing, 37(2), 137-144. 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2015.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lenz, E. R., & Pugh, L. C. (2014). The theory of unpleasant symptoms. In M. J. Smith & P. R. Liehr (Eds.), Middle range theory for nursing (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing Company, LLC. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lenze, E. J., Munin, M. C., Dew, M. A., Rogers, J. C., Seligman, K., Mulsant, B. H., & Reynolds Iii, C. F. (2004). Adverse effects of depression and cognitive impairment on rehabilitation participation and recovery from hip fracture. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19(5), 472-478. 10.1002/gps.1116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Levasseur, M., Généreux, M., Bruneau, J.-F., Vanasse, A., Chabot, É., Beaulac, C., & Bédard, M.-M. (2015). Importance of proximity to resources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: Results from a scoping study. BMC Public Health, 15, 1-19. 10.1186/s12889-015-1824-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2014). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (8th ed.). St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  30. Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: A methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 175-186. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mariconda, M., Costa, G. G., Cerbasi, S., Recano, P., Orabona, G., Gambacorta, M., & Misasi, M. (2016). Factors predicting mobility and the change in activities of daily living after hip fracture: A 1-year prospective cohort study. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 30(2), 71-77. 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. McCaffery, M., & Pasero, C. (1999). Pain: Clinical manual (2nd ed.). St Louis: Mosby. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mueller-Schotte, S., Bleijenberg, N., van der Schouw, Y. T., & Schuurmans, M. J. (2016). Fatigue as a long-term risk factor for limitations in instrumental activities of daily living and/or mobility performance in older adults after 10 years. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 1579-1587. 10.2147/CIA.S116741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Münter, K. H., Clemmesen, C. G., Foss, N. B., Palm, H., & Kristensen, M. T. (2018). Fatigue and pain limit independent mobility and physiotherapy after hip fracture surgery. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(15), 1808-1816. 10.1080/09638288.2017.1314556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Nuotio, M., & Luukkaala, T. (2016). Factors associated with changes in mobility and living arrangements in a comprehensive geriatric outpatient assessment after hip fracture. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(12), 1125-1133. 10.3109/09638288.2015.1074728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Parker, M. J., & Palmer, C. R. (1993). A new mobility score for predicting mortality after hip fracture. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume, 75(5), 797-798. 10.1302/0301-620X.75B5.8376443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pipatyaokul, R. (2017). Outcome after hip fracture in elderly patients. Medical Journal of Srisaket Surin Buriram Hospitals, 32(1), 21-32. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pope, J. E. (2020). Management of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open, 6(1), e001084. 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Promchat, L., Chanruangvanich, W., Utriyaprasit, K., & Riansuwan, K. (2015). Influence of sleep quality, comorbidity and hemoglobin level on hip fracture patients’ initial ambulatory ability after hemiarthroplasty. Thai Journal of Nursing Council, 30(2), 75-85. [Google Scholar]
  40. Reppas Rindlisbacher, C., Ahuja, M., Wong, E., Gormley, J., Siddhpuria, S., Lee, J., Conroy, M., & Patterson, C. (2021). Researching the effects of sleep on step count during the postoperative period. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 69(10), 2990-2992. 10.1111/jgs.17305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Roobsoong, A., Permyao, J., & Chantiratikul, S. (2020). Clinical outcomes of peritrochanteric hip fracture in the intermediate postoperative care project between the regional and district hospitals in Chiang Rai Province: Preliminary comparative results. Journal of Health Systems Research, 14(1), 88-100. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rosendahl-Riise, H., Dierkes, J., Ådnanes, S., Skodvin, V. A., Strand, E., & Ranhoff, A. H. (2020). Weight changes and mobility in the early phase after hip fracture in community-dwelling older persons. European Geriatric Medicine, 11, 545-553. 10.1007/s41999-020-00342-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Salpakoski, A., Portegijs, E., Kallinen, M., Sihvonen, S., Kiviranta, I., Alen, M., Rantanen, T., & Sipilä, S. (2010). Physical inactivity and pain in older men and women with hip fracture history. Gerontology, 57(1), 19-27. 10.1159/000315490 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Sawasdee, A., Preechawoong, S., & Jitpanya, C. (2017). Relationships between pain, sleep quality, depressive symptoms, and fatigue in post stroke patients. Kuakarun Journal of Nursing, 24(2), 7-22. [Google Scholar]
  45. Shyu, Y. I. L., Chen, M. C., Wu, C. C., & Cheng, H. S. (2010). Family caregivers’ needs predict functional recovery of older care recipients after hip fracture. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(11), 2450-2459. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05418.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sperber, A. D., Devellis, R. F., & Boehlecke, B. (1994). Cross-cultural translation: Methodology and validation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(4), 501-524. 10.1177/0022022194254006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Steihaug, O. M., Gjesdal, C. G., Bogen, B., Kristoffersen, M. H., Lien, G., Hufthammer, K. O., & Ranhoff, A. H. (2018). Does sarcopenia predict change in mobility after hip fracture? A multicenter observational study with one-year follow-up. BMC Geriatrics, 18, 65. 10.1186/s12877-018-0755-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Stenholm, S., Kronholm, E., Sainio, P., Borodulin, K., Era, P., Fogelholm, M., Partonen, T., Porkka-Heiskanen, T., & Koskinen, S. (2010). Sleep-related factors and mobility in older men and women. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 65(6), 649-657. 10.1093/gerona/glq017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stott-Eveneshen, S., Sims-Gould, J., McAllister, M. M., Fleig, L., Hanson, H. M., Cook, W. L., & Ashe, M. C. (2017). Reflections on hip fracture recovery from older adults enrolled in a clinical trial. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 3, 2333721417697663. 10.1177/2333721417697663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sucharitpongpan, W., Daraphongsataporn, N., Saloa, S., Philawuth, N., Chonyuen, P., Sriruanthong, K., & Waiwattana, K. (2019). Epidemiology of fragility hip fractures in Nan, Thailand. Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia, 5(1), 19-22. 10.1016/j.afos.2019.03.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Suwanno, J., Petsirasan, R., Saisuk, W., & Chanpradit, A. (2009). Age and heart failure self-care: A comparison of self-care maintenance between eldery and adults. Songklanagarind Medical Journal, 27(4), 335-346. [Google Scholar]
  52. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multiple statistics Boston: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tam, T.-L., Tsang, K.-K., & Lee, K.-B. (2020). Development of a prognostic model to predict post-operative mobility of patients with fragility hip fractures: A retrospective cohort study. International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing, 38, 100770. 10.1016/j.ijotn.2020.100770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Tan, H., Wutthilert, C., & O'Connor, M. (2011). Spirituality and quality of life in older people with chronic illness in Thailand. Progress in Palliative Care, 19(4), 177-184. 10.1179/1743291X11Y.0000000013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Thai Orthopaedic Nurses Society . (2018). Clinical nursing practice guidelines for patients with hip fracture undergoing hip arthroplasty. Bangkok: N.P. Press. [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Cauter, E. (2011). Sleep disturbances and insulin resistance. Diabetic Medicine, 28(12), 1455-1462. 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03459.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Den Akker-Scheek, I., Stevens, M., Spriensma, A., & Van Horn, J. R. (2004). Groningen Orthopaedic Social Support Scale: Validity and reliability. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(1), 57-63. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03065.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Vochteloo, A. J. H., Moerman, S., Tuinebreijer, W. E., Maier, A. B., de Vries, M. R., Bloem, R. M., Nelissen, R. G. H. H., & Pilot, P. (2013). More than half of hip fracture patients do not regain mobility in the first postoperative year. Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 13(2), 334-341. 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2012.00904.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet, 370(9596), 1453-1457. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wongtriratanachai, P., Luevitoonvechkij, S., Songpatanasilp, T., Sribunditkul, S., Leerapun, T., Phadungkiat, S., & Rojanasthien, S. (2013). Increasing incidence of hip fracture in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 16(3), 347-352. 10.1016/j.jocd.2012.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. World Health Organization . (2023). A healthy lifestyle - WHO recommendations. https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/a-healthy-lifestyle---who-recommendations
  62. Zaslavsky, O., Zisberg, A., & Shadmi, E. (2015). Impact of functional change before and during hospitalization on functional recovery 1 month following hospitalization. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 70(3), 381-386. 10.1093/gerona/glu168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Belitung Nursing Journal are provided here courtesy of Belitung Raya Foundation

RESOURCES