Literature DB >> 19495825

Direct-to-participant feedback and awareness of bone mineral density testing results in a population-based sample of mid-aged Canadians.

E Kingwell1, J C Prior, P A Ratner, S M Kennedy.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: This population-based study of mid-aged Canadians assessed awareness of diagnosis by bone mineral density (BMD) following dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing and compared the effects of feedback only to the physician with direct-to-participant feedback. Poor recall of osteoporosis results was observed irrespective of the feedback destination, but direct-to-participant feedback improved recall of borderline or normal results.
INTRODUCTION: BMD testing provides information about fracture risk. This study assessed whether awareness of results, in a random population sample of mid-aged Canadians, differed if results were provided to physicians only or directly to participants.
METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 2,678 women and men aged 40-60 years from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Participants completed hip and spine DXA and interviewer-administered questionnaires regarding demographics and osteoporosis risk factors. Lateral spine X-rays were conducted on those > or =50 years of age. All test results were reported to the participant, the family physician or both. Associations between BMD results, feedback destination and correct self-report results, 3 years later, were assessed using logistic regression while adjusting for potential confounders.
RESULTS: Only 25% of men and 33% of women correctly reported their osteoporosis diagnoses. Direct-to-participant vs. physician-only reports did not improve recall of osteoporosis diagnosis but improved recall of borderline or normal BMD. Older (vs. younger) men and men with prevalent vertebral fractures demonstrated better recall of their osteoporosis diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Recall of low BMD results was poor, despite direct-to-participant feedback and even in the presence of other osteoporosis risk factors. Direct-to-participant feedback may improve awareness of borderline or normal BMD results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19495825     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-0966-2

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


  39 in total

Review 1.  Optimistic biases about personal risks.

Authors:  N D Weinstein
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-12-08       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Who has time for family medicine?

Authors:  Nicholas Pimlott
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  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

4.  Estimation of the prevalence of low bone density in Canadian women and men using a population-specific DXA reference standard: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos).

Authors:  A Tenenhouse; L Joseph; N Kreiger; S Poliquin; T M Murray; L Blondeau; C Berger; D A Hanley; J C Prior
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Risk of hip fracture according to the World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia and osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; B Jonsson; C De Laet; A Dawson
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.398

6.  Screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis: do the accepted normal ranges lead to overdiagnosis?

Authors:  A I Ahmed; G M Blake; J M Rymer; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Early discontinuation of treatment for osteoporosis.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Margaret R Grove; Cristina S Hammond; Megan M Moncur; G Thomas Ray; Gwen M Hebert; Alice R Pressman; Bruce Ettinger
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2003-08-15       Impact factor: 4.965

8.  Prevalent vertebral deformities: relationship to bone mineral density and spinal osteophytosis in elderly men and women.

Authors:  G Jones; C White; T Nguyen; P N Sambrook; P J Kelly; J A Eisman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Time trends in incidence rates of first hip fracture in the Uppsala Health Care Region, Sweden, 1965-1983.

Authors:  T Naessén; R Parker; I Persson; M Zack; H O Adami
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Does bone mineral density and knowledge influence health-related behaviors of elderly men at risk for osteoporosis?

Authors:  Avni Patel; Penelope S Coates; Joel B Nelson; Donald L Trump; Neil M Resnick; Susan L Greenspan
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  8 in total

1.  Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap in women: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  L-A Fraser; G Ioannidis; J D Adachi; L Pickard; S M Kaiser; J Prior; J P Brown; D A Hanley; W P Olszynski; T Anastassiades; S Jamal; R Josse; D Goltzman; A Papaioannou
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Patients do not have a consistent understanding of high risk for future fracture: a qualitative study of patients from a post-fracture secondary prevention program.

Authors:  J E M Sale; M A Gignac; G Hawker; D Beaton; L Frankel; E Bogoch; V Elliot-Gibson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Evaluation of a Multimodal, Direct-to-Patient Educational Intervention Targeting Barriers to Osteoporosis Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Maria I Danila; Ryan C Outman; Elizabeth J Rahn; Amy S Mudano; David T Redden; Peng Li; Jeroan J Allison; Fred A Anderson; Allison Wyman; Susan L Greenspan; Andrea Z LaCroix; Jeri W Nieves; Stuart L Silverman; Ethel S Siris; Nelson B Watts; Michael J Miller; Jeffrey R Curtis; Amy H Warriner; Nicole C Wright; Kenneth G Saag
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Patient perceptions of provider barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention.

Authors:  J E M Sale; E Bogoch; G Hawker; M Gignac; D Beaton; S Jaglal; L Frankel
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  The PAADRN study: a design for a randomized controlled practical clinical trial to improve bone health.

Authors:  Stephanie W Edmonds; Fredric D Wolinsky; Alan J Christensen; Xin Lu; Michael P Jones; Douglas W Roblin; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Fractures are increased and bisphosphonate use decreased in individuals with insulin-dependent diabetes: a 10 year cohort study.

Authors:  Lisa-Ann Fraser; Alexandra Papaioannou; Jonathan D Adachi; Jinhui Ma; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Adult Premenopausal Bone Health Related to Reproductive Characteristics-Population-Based Data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos).

Authors:  Azita Goshtasebi; Claudie Berger; Susan I Barr; Christopher S Kovacs; Tanveer Towheed; K Shawn Davison; Jerilynn C Prior
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  A multi-modal intervention for Activating Patients at Risk for Osteoporosis (APROPOS): Rationale, design, and uptake of online study intervention material.

Authors:  Maria I Danila; Ryan C Outman; Elizabeth J Rahn; Amy S Mudano; Tammi F Thomas; David T Redden; Jeroan J Allison; Fred A Anderson; Julia P Anderson; Peter M Cram; Jeffrey R Curtis; Liana Fraenkel; Susan L Greenspan; Andrea Z LaCroix; Sumit R Majumdar; Michael J Miller; Jeri W Nieves; Monika M Safford; Stuart L Silverman; Ethel S Siris; Daniel H Solomon; Amy H Warriner; Nelson B Watts; Robert A Yood; Kenneth G Saag
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2016-12-15
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.