OBJECTIVE: Poor adherence to therapy, perhaps related to unaddressed patient preferences, limits the effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment in at-risk women. A parallel patient-level randomized trial in primary care practices was performed. METHODS:Eligible postmenopausal women with bone mineral density T-scores less than -1.0 and not receiving bisphosphonate therapy were included. In addition to usual primary care, intervention patients received a decision aid (a tailored pictographic 10-year fracture risk estimate, absolute risk reduction with bisphosphonates, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost), and control patients received a standard brochure. Knowledge transfer, patient involvement in decision-making, and rates of bisphosphonate start and adherence were studied. Data came from medical records, post-visit written and 6-month phone surveys, video recordings of clinical encounters, and pharmacy prescription profiles. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (range of 10-year fracture risk, 6%-60%) were allocated randomly to receive the decision aid (n=52) or usual care (n=48). Patients receiving the decision aid were 1.8 times more likely to correctly identify their 10-year fracture risk (49% vs 28%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.2) and 2.7 times more likely to identify their estimated risk reduction with bisphosphonates (43% vs 16%; 95% CI, 1.3-5.7). Patient involvement improved with the decision aid by 23% (95% CI, 13.6-31.4). Bisphosphonates were started by 44% of patients receiving the decision aid and 40% of patients receiving usual care. Adherence at 6 months was similarly high across both groups, but the proportion with more than 80% adherence was higher with the decision aid (n=23 [100%] vs n=14 [74%]; P = .009). CONCLUSION: A decision aid improved the quality of clinical decisions about bisphosphonate therapy in at-risk postmenopausal women, did not affect start rates, and may have improved adherence.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Poor adherence to therapy, perhaps related to unaddressed patient preferences, limits the effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment in at-risk women. A parallel patient-level randomized trial in primary care practices was performed. METHODS: Eligible postmenopausal women with bone mineral density T-scores less than -1.0 and not receiving bisphosphonate therapy were included. In addition to usual primary care, intervention patients received a decision aid (a tailored pictographic 10-year fracture risk estimate, absolute risk reduction with bisphosphonates, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost), and control patients received a standard brochure. Knowledge transfer, patient involvement in decision-making, and rates of bisphosphonate start and adherence were studied. Data came from medical records, post-visit written and 6-month phone surveys, video recordings of clinical encounters, and pharmacy prescription profiles. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (range of 10-year fracture risk, 6%-60%) were allocated randomly to receive the decision aid (n=52) or usual care (n=48). Patients receiving the decision aid were 1.8 times more likely to correctly identify their 10-year fracture risk (49% vs 28%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.2) and 2.7 times more likely to identify their estimated risk reduction with bisphosphonates (43% vs 16%; 95% CI, 1.3-5.7). Patient involvement improved with the decision aid by 23% (95% CI, 13.6-31.4). Bisphosphonates were started by 44% of patients receiving the decision aid and 40% of patients receiving usual care. Adherence at 6 months was similarly high across both groups, but the proportion with more than 80% adherence was higher with the decision aid (n=23 [100%] vs n=14 [74%]; P = .009). CONCLUSION: A decision aid improved the quality of clinical decisions about bisphosphonate therapy in at-risk postmenopausal women, did not affect start rates, and may have improved adherence.
Authors: Stephanie W Edmonds; Samantha L Solimeo; Vu-Thuy Nguyen; Nicole C Wright; Douglas W Roblin; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram Journal: Perm J Date: 2016-11-18
Authors: Lisette Ackermans; Michiel G Hageman; A H Bos; Daniel Haverkamp; Vanessa A B Scholtes; Rudolf W Poolman Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: David O Warner; Annie LeBlanc; Sandeep Kadimpati; Kristin S Vickers; Yu Shi; Victor M Montori Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: M Hiligsmann; M Salas; D A Hughes; E Manias; F H Gwadry-Sridhar; P Linck; W Cowell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Jennifer L Kuntz; Monika M Safford; Jasvinder A Singh; Shobha Phansalkar; Sarah P Slight; Qoua Liang Her; Nancy Allen Lapointe; Robin Mathews; Emily O'Brien; William B Brinkman; Kevin Hommel; Kevin C Farmer; Elissa Klinger; Nivethietha Maniam; Heather J Sobko; Stacy C Bailey; Insook Cho; Maureen H Rumptz; Meredith L Vandermeer; Mark C Hornbrook Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-09-16
Authors: Kevin Mertz; Romil F Shah; Sara L Eppler; Jeffrey Yao; Marc Safran; Ariel Palanca; Serena S Hu; Michael Gardner; Derek F Amanatullah; Robin N Kamal Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Michael R Gionfriddo; Aaron L Leppin; Juan P Brito; Annie Leblanc; Nilay D Shah; Victor M Montori Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Kristina Tiedje; Nathan D Shippee; Anna M Johnson; Priscilla M Flynn; Dawn M Finnie; Juliette T Liesinger; Carl R May; Marianne E Olson; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Nilay D Shah; Barbara P Yawn; Victor M Montori Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-04-15