Study	Reason for exclusion
Adunsky 2011	Intervention not solely aimed at mobilisation
Aftab 2020	The intervention group received multifactorial multidisciplinary rehabilitation program
Beckman 2021	Pseudo‐randomised
Berggren 2019	Intervention not solely aimed at mobilisation
Corna 2021	Intervention was conventional rehabilitation plus individualised, progressive aerobic exercise training with an arm crank ergometer for 30 minutes/day, 5 days/week for 3 weeks. Aerobic training was conducted on a commercial motorised arm crank ergometer. The difference between the intervention and control groups is not a mobilisation strategy.
Dallimore 2015	Proportion of participants receiving intervention after a hip fracture is unknown
Invernizzi 2019	Both groups undertook exercise. Difference between groups was amino acids
Kalron 2018	Hip fracture and total hip joint replacement. Outcomes not reported for hip fracture only
Karlsson 2016	Intervention included multiple components delivered by a multidisciplinary team
Kim 2020	Outcomes focused on strength and muscle activity; did not measure mobility
Lahtinen 2017	Compared interventions containing multiple components and compared two models of care
Laiz 2017	Primarily a vitamin D trial. Intervention participants also received instruction on exercises and a leaflet. This trial was excluded as the intervention did not target mobility. Compliance for vitamin D recorded but no mention of exercise compliance. The outcomes were limited to survival and complications (with no mobility focus).
Lehrl 2012	Participants underwent total hip arthroplasty; proportion with hip fracture unknown. Intervention was a video game with cognitive tasks, aiming to improve mental activation
Pfeiffer 2020	The intervention primarily focused on reducing falls and fear of falling; the intervention was largely cognitive and employed behavioural strategies that did not meet the intervention criteria for this review.
Scheffers‐Barnhoorn 2019	Both the intervention and control groups received multidisciplinary geriatric rehabilitation including regular exercise training, with the between‐group difference in intervention being a cognitive‐behavioural strategy rather than a mobility‐training strategy.
Taraldsen 2015	Intervention was a care programme, rather than a mobility strategy
Wang 2020	The intervention was a model of care, with medical and therapy involvement, rather than a mobility strategy.
Wu 2010	Participants had acetabular not hip (proximal femur) fractures