The effectiveness of psychological interventions for older adults with hip fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Health PsycholJan 30, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchGeriatricsPsychiatry

Jian Song, Chun Huang, Xueyi Wei et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated theory-based psychological interventions for psychosocial outcomes and physical function in older adults with hip fractures. It included 16 randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials (n = 1558), with 13 studies included in meta-analysis. Psychological interventions were associated with improvements in psychosocial outcomes, but no statistically significant effect was found on physical function. Subgroup analyses suggested differences in anxiety and depression responses by age, and mindfulness-based interventions showed potential benefit. The authors caution that methodological limitations and risk of bias mean these findings require further validation.

Key findings

  • Sixteen studies (n = 1558) were included; 13 were suitable for meta-analysis.
  • Psychological interventions were associated with improved psychosocial outcomes, while no statistically significant effect was observed on physical function.
  • Subgroup analysis suggested greater anxiety improvement among patients aged ≤ 70 years and a more pronounced trend toward depression reduction in those older than 70.
  • Mindfulness-based interventions showed potential for alleviating anxiety and depression symptoms.

Why it matters

Psychosocial difficulties are relevant to recovery after hip fracture, and this review suggests psychological interventions may help address them. However, the absence of a statistically significant physical-function effect means psychosocial improvement should not be assumed to translate into better physical recovery. The findings also highlight the need to assess both psychological and functional outcomes in future studies.

What to keep in mind

The authors report methodological limitations and risk of bias in the included studies, limiting confidence in the evidence.

Source

Published in J Health Psychol. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Geriatrics

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.