It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Defining common patterns of recovery after an acute health stressor (resiliency phenotypes) has clinical and research implications. We examined groups of patients with similar recovery patterns across 10 outcomes following hip fracture to determine the most important predictors of resiliency group membership. This study is a secondary analysis of three prospective cohort studies. Participants, community-dwelling adults aged >65 with recent surgical repair of a hip fracture (n=541), were recruited from eight hospitals near Baltimore and followed for up to one year. Self-reported function and activity measures were collected using validated scales at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months. Physical performance tests were administered at all follow-up visits. Stressor characteristics, co-morbidities, psychosocial and environmental factors were collected at baseline, and latent class profile analysis was used to identify resiliency phenotypes and logistic regression models to identify associated factors. Three resiliency phenotypes had similar patterns across the 10 outcome measures and were defined as “high resilience” (n=163, 30.1%), “medium resilience” (n=242, 44.7%), and “low resilience” (n=136, 25.2%). Recovery trajectories for outcome measures were plotted for each resiliency group. Self-reported pre-fracture function was by far the strongest predictor of resilience group membership (AUC 0.84). Demographic factors, co-morbidities, stressor characteristics, environmental factors, and psychosocial characteristics were less predictive, but several factors remained significant in a fully adjusted model (AUC 0.88). These three resiliency phenotypes have immediate utility for clinical decision-making. They can be measured in future studies with a more parsimonious set of variables, and may prove useful for understanding mediators of physical resilience.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States
2 University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
3 University of Maryland Baltimore School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States