4.0 Article

Exploring Older Adults' Patterns and Perceptions of Exercise after Hip Fracture

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY CANADA
Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages 86-93

Publisher

UNIV TORONTO PRESS INC
DOI: 10.3138/ptc.2012-01BH

Keywords

aged; exercise; hip fractures; motivation; motor activity

Categories

Funding

  1. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR)
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  3. CIHR
  4. British Columbia Network for Aging Research (BCNAR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To identify exercise patterns and perceived barriers, enablers, and motivators to engaging in exercise for older adults following hip fracture. Method: Telephone interviews were conducted with older adults (aged 62-97 y) within 1 year after hip fracture. Participants were asked about basic demographic information; level of mobility before hip fracture; current level of mobility; and barriers, enablers, and motivators to participating in exercise. Results: A total of 32 older adults successfully recovering after hip fracture completed the telephone interviews. Participants reported few problems with their mobility, and all were engaging in exercise. There were few reported barriers to exercise; the most common were health-related concerns (pain, fatigue, illness, or injury). The most frequently reported enablers were intrinsic factors (determination, seeing improvements, and making exercise part of their daily routine); in particular, the most common motivator to exercise was recovery of function to improve mobility and complete daily and leisure activities. Conclusions: This study highlights the responses of a group of older adults recovering well after hip fracture. Older adults engage in exercise despite the potential limitations associated with a hip fracture. Participants' responses underscore the importance of intrinsic factors and suggest avenues for future investigation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available