Literature DB >> 12730780

Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England.

D H Solomon1, M T Connelly, C J Rosen, B Dawson-Hughes, D P Kiel, S L Greenspan, E S Leib, M Holick, A H Miguel, J S Finkelstein.   

Abstract

Large population-based surveys have shown that approximately 30% of people over age 65 years have osteoporosis and that 17% of the population over 65 years will sustain a fracture during their lifetime. Many people with osteoporosis are never being evaluated even though effective treatments are available. We examined why primary care physicians order few bone mineral density scans. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians practicing in any of the six New England states. Target physician specialties included internal medicine, general practitioners/family physicians, and obstetrician-gynecologists who had a facsimile number listed with the American Medical Association. Demographics, practice characteristics, use of bone densitometry, and attitudes regarding osteoporosis, bone densitometry and health maintenance were assessed by questionnaire. Twelve percent (n=494) of the physicians responded to the questionnaire. Respondents were similar to non-respondents with respect to years of practice, training and geographical state, though they were more likely to be female (p < or =0.05). Respondents had a mean age of 51 years, and 51% were trained in internal medicine, 25% in general practice/family practice and 24% in obstetrics-gynecology. The mean number of self-reported bone densitometry referrals per month was 10+/-11, and 25% of respondents reported that they referred fewer than 4 patients per month. In adjusted logistic models, factors significantly associated with referring fewer than 4 patients per month were: training in internal medicine (odds ratio (OR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.9) or general practice/family practice (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.2) versus obstetrics-gynecology; practicing in an urban setting (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-4.9) or rural/small town setting (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1) versus a suburban setting; spending less than 50% of professional time in patient care (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.7-9.5); seeing the lowest proportion of postmenopausal women (OR 2.5., 95% CI 1.2-5.3); the belief that calcium and vitamin D are adequate to treat osteoporosis (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0-4.5); and the belief that osteoporosis treatment should not be based on bone density results (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7-6.1). Potentially modifiable physician beliefs and a number of practice characteristics are associated with low referral rates for bone densitometry. Educational strategies aimed at improving the use of bone density testing should consider these factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12730780     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-002-1326-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  27 in total

1.  Bone mineral densitometry substantially influences health-related behaviors of postmenopausal women.

Authors:  C D Marci; W B Anderson; M B Viechnicki; S L Greenspan
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.333

2.  Principles of educational outreach ('academic detailing') to improve clinical decision making.

Authors:  S B Soumerai; J Avorn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-01-26       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  A randomized trial of nasal spray salmon calcitonin in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis: the prevent recurrence of osteoporotic fractures study. PROOF Study Group.

Authors:  C H Chesnut; S Silverman; K Andriano; H Genant; A Gimona; S Harris; D Kiel; M LeBoff; M Maricic; P Miller; C Moniz; M Peacock; P Richardson; N Watts; D Baylink
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Results of bone densitometry affect women's decisions about taking measures to prevent fractures.

Authors:  S M Rubin; S R Cummings
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-06-15       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Randomized trial of osteoporosis screening. Use of hormone replacement therapy and quality-of-life results.

Authors:  D J Torgerson; R E Thomas; M K Campbell; D M Reid
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-13

6.  Management of osteoporosis: a survey of Israeli physicians' knowledge and attitudes.

Authors:  P Werner; I Vered
Journal:  Isr Med Assoc J       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 0.892

7.  Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?

Authors:  D Davis; M A O'Brien; N Freemantle; F M Wolf; P Mazmanian; A Taylor-Vaisey
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Fracture of the distal forearm as a forecaster of subsequent hip fracture: a population-based cohort study with 24 years of follow-up.

Authors:  H Mallmin; S Ljunghall; I Persson; T Naessén; U B Krusemo; R Bergström
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 4.333

9.  Effect of bone density evaluation on hormone replacement therapy prescription.

Authors:  S Rozenberg; M Kroll; J Vandromme; M Paesmans; H Ham
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  D Marshall; O Johnell; H Wedel
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-05-18
View more
  12 in total

1.  Management of osteoporosis in general practice: a cross-sectional survey of primary care practitioners in Spain.

Authors:  L Pérez-Edo; M Ciria Recasens; C Castelo-Branco; P Orozco López; A Gimeno Marqués; C Pérez; J Manasanch Dalmau
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-01-27       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Importance of bone mineral density measurements in evaluating fragility bone fracture risk in Asian Indian men.

Authors:  K Kuruvilla; A M Kenny; L G Raisz; J E Kerstetter; R S Feinn; T V Rajan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-05-06       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Adherence of academic geriatric practitioners to osteoporosis screening guidelines.

Authors:  D N McNally; A M Kenny; J-A Smith
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-10-17       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Metasynthesis of Patient Attitudes Toward Bone Densitometry.

Authors:  Aaron T Seaman; Melissa Steffen; Taisha Doo; Heather S Healy; Samantha L Solimeo
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  Quality health care gaps in osteoporosis: how can patients, providers, and the health system do a better job?

Authors:  Gim Gee Teng; Jeffrey R Curtis; Kenneth G Saag
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 5.096

6.  Osteoporosis practice patterns in 2006 among primary care physicians participating in the NORA study.

Authors:  T W Weiss; E S Siris; E Barrett-Connor; P D Miller; C A McHorney
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Utilization of DXA Bone Mineral Densitometry in Ontario: An Evidence-Based Analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2006-11-01

8.  FRAX provides robust fracture prediction regardless of socioeconomic status.

Authors:  S L Brennan; W D Leslie; L M Lix; H Johansson; A Oden; E McCloskey; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Improving quality of care in osteoporosis: opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Gim Gee Teng; Amy Warriner; Jeffrey R Curtis; Kenneth G Saag
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.592

10.  Osteoporosis management in prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

Authors:  Ellen F T Yee; Robert E White; Glen H Murata; Christine Handanos; Richard M Hoffman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.