Literature DB >> 17014021

Preference for hip protectors among older adults at high risk for osteoporotic fractures.

Liana Fraenkel1, Barbara Gulanski, Dick R Wittink.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine older adults' treatment preferences for osteoporosis comparing bisphosphonates and hip protectors.
METHODS: Subjects at high risk for an osteoporotic hip fracture completed a discrete choice questionnaire to determine preferences for hip protectors versus oral weekly bisphosphonates. Simulations, based on respondents' values for type of treatment and absolute reduction in risk of hip fractures over 5 years, were performed to predict treatment choices.
RESULTS: Seventy-six patients participated in this study (92% participation rate). At the time of the study 57% of the participants were currently using bisphosphonates; none had ever heard of a hip protector. In the base-case scenario, in which both options were described as being equally effective, 9% preferred hip protectors, 88% weekly oral bisphosphonates, and 3% refused all options. When hip protectors were described as being more effective than bisphosphonates, 26% preferred hip protectors, 71% weekly oral bisphosphonates, and 3% continued to refuse all options. Preference for hip protectors was stronger among participants not currently using bisphosphonates (36% vs 19%, p = 0.08), as well as among subjects preferring to avoid taking prescription drugs for most health problems (44% vs 12%, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: When presented with tradeoffs between hip protectors and bisphosphonates, the majority of community-dwelling older adults at high risk for fracture prefer the latter. Of note, however, many of the participants in this study were current bisphosphonate users. Future trials and education programs should consider targeting respondents preferring to manage health problems using nonpharmacologic treatment approaches since, based on the results of this study, adherence and proper use of hip protectors is expected to be higher among these patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17014021      PMCID: PMC1615711     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Rheumatol        ISSN: 0315-162X            Impact factor:   4.666


  19 in total

Review 1.  Adherence with hip protectors: a proposal for standardised definitions.

Authors:  S E Kurrle; I D Cameron; S Quine; R G Cumming
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-10-31       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Do hip protectors decrease the risk of hip fracture in institutional and community-dwelling elderly? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Anna M Sawka; Pauline Boulos; Karen Beattie; Lehana Thabane; Alexandra Papaioannou; Amiram Gafni; Ann Cranney; Nicole Zytaruk; David A Hanley; Jonathan D Adachi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-07-01       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Compliance with osteoporosis medications.

Authors:  Daniel H Solomon; Jerry Avorn; Jeffrey N Katz; Joel S Finkelstein; Marilyn Arnold; Jennifer M Polinski; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-11-14

Review 4.  Hip fracture: risk factors and outcomes.

Authors:  Lois E Wehren; Jay Magaziner
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.096

5.  The Amsterdam Hip Protector Study: compliance and determinants of compliance.

Authors:  N M van Schoor; G Asma; J H Smit; L M Bouter; P Lips
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-04-18       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Acceptability and compliance with hip protectors in community-dwelling women at high risk of hip fracture.

Authors:  S Patel; L Ogunremi; U Chinappen
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2003-02-28       Impact factor: 7.580

7.  Predictors of adherence with the recommended use of hip protectors.

Authors:  Susan E Kurrle; Ian D Cameron; Susan Quine
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 6.053

8.  External hip protectors in home-dwelling older persons.

Authors:  Rauno Heikinheimo; Anja Jalonen-Männikkö; Hellä Asumaniemi; Erkki Lehtomäki
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.636

Review 9.  Effectiveness of hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in elderly people: systematic review.

Authors:  Martyn J Parker; William J Gillespie; Lesley D Gillespie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-02

10.  Cost-effectiveness of hip protectors in the prevention of osteoporosis related hip fractures in elderly nursing home residents.

Authors:  Sonia Singh; Huiying Sun; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.666

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions?

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Logan Trenaman; Mark Harrison
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.592

Review 2.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Health outcome priorities among competing cardiovascular, fall injury, and medication-related symptom outcomes.

Authors:  Mary E Tinetti; Gail J McAvay; Terri R Fried; Heather G Allore; Joanna C Salmon; Joanne M Foody; Luann Bianco; Sandra Ginter; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 4.  Systematic scoping review of patients' perceived needs of health services for osteoporosis.

Authors:  L Chou; P Shamdasani; A M Briggs; F M Cicuttini; K Sullivan; K L M D Seneviwickrama; A E Wluka
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Development of a tool for eliciting patient priority from among competing cardiovascular disease, medication-symptoms, and fall injury outcomes.

Authors:  Mary E Tinetti; Gail J McAvay; Terri R Fried; JoAnne M Foody; Luann Bianco; Sandra Ginter; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 5.562

6.  Why do women reject bisphosphonates for osteoporosis? A videographic study.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Scoville; Paula Ponce de Leon Lovaton; Nilay D Shah; Laurie J Pencille; Victor M Montori
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.