Mortality and Causes of Death After Hip Fractures in The Netherlands

1993 ◽  
Vol XXXVII (3) ◽  
pp. 168
Author(s):  
F. T. J. BOEREBOOM ◽  
J. A. RAYMAKERS ◽  
S. A. DUURSMA
2021 ◽  
pp. 377-382
Author(s):  
Michael Obladen

Since antiquity, cot death was explained as accidental suffocation, overlaying, or smothering. Parents were blamed for neglect or drunkenness, and a cage called arcuccio was invented around 1570 to protect the sleeping infant. Up to the 19th century, accidents were registered as natural causes of death. From 1830, accidental suffocation became unacceptable for physicians and legislators, and ‘natural’ explanations for the catastrophe were sought, with parents being consoled rather than blamed. Prone sleeping originated in the 1930s and from 1944 was associated with cot death. However, from the 1960s many authors recommended prone sleeping for infants, and many countries adopted the advice. A worldwide epidemic followed, peaking at 2% in England and Wales and 5% in New Zealand in the 1980s. Although epidemiological evidence was available by 1970, the first intervention was initiated in the Netherlands in 1989. Cot death disappeared almost entirely wherever prone sleeping was avoided. This strongly supports the assumption that prone sleeping has the greatest influence on the disorder, and that the epidemic resulted from wrong advice.


1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith H. Wolleswinkel-Van Den Bosch ◽  
Frans W. A. Van Poppel ◽  
Johan P. Mackenbach

1992 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 279-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. T. J. Boereboom ◽  
J. A. Raymakers ◽  
R. R. M. de Groot ◽  
S. A. Duursma

10.2196/16989 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e16989
Author(s):  
Merle A J Geerds ◽  
Wieke S Nijmeijer ◽  
J H Hegeman ◽  
Miriam M R Vollenbroek-Hutten

Background As a result of an aging population, there has been an increasing incidence of hip fractures worldwide. In the Netherlands, in order to improve the quality of care for elderly patients with hip fractures, the multidisciplinary Centre for Geriatric Traumatology was established in 2008 at the Department of Trauma Surgery at Ziekenhuisgroep Twente hospital (located in Almelo and Hengelo in the Netherlands). Objective Though the Dutch Hip Fracture audit is used to monitor the quality of care for patients with fractures of the hip, only 30.7% of patients complete registration in the 3-month follow-up period. Mobile apps offer an opportunity for improvement in this area. The aim of this study was to investigate the usability and acceptance of a mobile app for gathering indicators of quality of care in a 3-month follow-up period after postoperative treatment of hip fracture. Methods From July 2017 to December 2017, patients who underwent surgical treatment for hip fracture were recruited. Patients and caregivers, who were collectively considered the participant cohort, were asked to download the app and answer a questionnaire. Participants were divided into two groups—those who downloaded the app and those who did not download the app. A telephone interview that was based upon the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology was conducted with a subset of participants from each group (1:1 ratio). This study was designated as not being subject to the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act according to the appropriate medical research ethics committees. Results Of the patients and caregivers who participated, 26.4% (29/110) downloaded the app, whereas 73.6% (81/110) did not. Telephone interviews with the subset of participants (n=24 per group) revealed that 54.0% (13/24) of the group of participants who did not download the app had forgotten the study. Among the group who downloaded the app, 95.8% (23/24) had the intention of completing the questionnaire, but only 4.2% (1/24) did so. The reasons for not completing the questionnaire included technical problems, cognitive disorders, or patient dependency on caregivers. Most participants in the group who downloaded the app self-reported a high level of expertise in using a smartphone (22/24, 91.7%), and sufficient facilitating conditions for using a smartphone were self-reported in both groups (downloaded the app: 23/24, 95.8%; did not download the app: 21/24, 87.5%), suggesting that these factors were not barriers to completion. Conclusions Despite self-reported intention to use the app, smartphone expertise, and sufficient facilitating conditions for smartphone use, implementation of the mobile app was infeasible for daily practice. This was due to a combination of technical problems, factors related to the implementation process, and the population of interest having cognitive disorders or a dependency on caregivers for mobile technology.


2011 ◽  
Vol 155 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn M. van der Plas ◽  
Xandra W. van den Tweel ◽  
Ronald B. Geskus ◽  
Harriët Heijboer ◽  
Bart J. Biemond ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document