↓ Skip to main content

Validation and psychometric properties of the commitment to hip protectors (C-HiP) index in long-term care providers of British Columbia, Canada: a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation and psychometric properties of the commitment to hip protectors (C-HiP) index in long-term care providers of British Columbia, Canada: a cross-sectional survey
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0493-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra M.B. Korall, Judith Godin, Fabio Feldman, Ian D. Cameron, Pet-Ming Leung, Joanie Sims-Gould, Stephen N. Robinovitch

Abstract

If worn during a fall, hip protectors substantially reduce risk for hip fracture. However, a major barrier to their clinical efficacy is poor user adherence. In long-term care, adherence likely depends on how committed care providers are to hip protectors, but empirical evidence is lacking due to the absence of a psychometrically valid assessment tool. We conducted a cross-sectional survey in a convenience sample of 529 paid care providers. We developed the 15-item C-HiP Index to measure commitment, comprised of three subscales: affective, cognitive and behavioural. Responses were subjected to hierarchical factor analysis and internal consistency testing. Eleven experts rated the relevance and clarity of items on 4-point Likert scales. We performed simple linear regression to determine whether C-HiP Index scores were positively related to the question, "Do you think of yourself as a champion of hip protectors", rated on a 5-point Likert scale. We examined whether the C-HiP Index could differentiate respondents: (i) who were aware of a protected fall causing hip fracture from those who were unaware; (ii) who agreed in the existence of a champion of hip protectors within their home from those who didn't. Hierarchical factor analysis yielded two lower-order factors and a single higher-order factor, representing the overarching concept of commitment to hip protectors. Items from affective and cognitive subscales loaded highest on the first lower-order factor, while items from the behavioural subscale loaded highest on the second. We eliminated one item due to low factor matrix coefficients, and poor expert evaluation. The C-HiP Index had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96. A one-unit increase in championing was associated with a 5.2-point (p < 0.01) increase in C-HiP Index score. Median C-HiP Index scores were 4.3-points lower (p < 0.01) among respondents aware of a protected fall causing hip fracture, and 7.0-points higher (p < 0.01) among respondents who agreed in the existence of a champion of hip protectors within their home. We offer evidence of the psychometric properties of the C-HiP Index. The development of a valid and reliable assessment tool is crucial to understanding the factors that govern adherence to hip protectors in long-term care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Librarian 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Engineering 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 23 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,927,741
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,564
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,070
of 310,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#38
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.