UNLABELLED: We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not connect fractures to bone health. The term "fragility" fracture was a misnomer to patients who perceived the event as physically and emotionally traumatic. Improved communication about such fractures could facilitate awareness of bone health. INTRODUCTION: We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not perceive the connection between their fracture and low bone mass. METHODS: A descriptive phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. During face-to-face interviews, the participants described the experience of their fracture in detail and the circumstances surrounding the fracture. Data analysis was guided by Giorgi's methodology. English-speaking male and female patients aged 65+ years and "high" risk for future fracture were eligible and screened for osteoporosis through an established screening program at an urban teaching hospital. RESULTS: We recruited 30 participants (9 males, 21 females), aged 65-88, who presented with a hip (n = 11), wrist (n = 11), shoulder (n = 6), or other (n = 2) fracture. Ten of the 30 fractures occurred inside the home and the remaining fractures occurred outside the home. Sustaining a fragility fracture was perceived as a traumatic event, both physically and emotionally. In general, participants used forceful, action-oriented words and referred to hard surfaces to describe the experience. Explanations for the fracture, other than bone quality, were often reported, especially that falls were "freak" or "fluke" events. Patients who sustained a fracture under more mundane circumstances seemed more likely to perceive a connection between the fracture and their bone health. CONCLUSIONS: The term fragility fracture was a misnomer for many older adults. By reexamining how this term is communicated to fracture patients, health care providers may better facilitate patients' awareness of bone health.
UNLABELLED: We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not connect fractures to bone health. The term "fragility" fracture was a misnomer to patients who perceived the event as physically and emotionally traumatic. Improved communication about such fractures could facilitate awareness of bone health. INTRODUCTION: We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not perceive the connection between their fracture and low bone mass. METHODS: A descriptive phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. During face-to-face interviews, the participants described the experience of their fracture in detail and the circumstances surrounding the fracture. Data analysis was guided by Giorgi's methodology. English-speaking male and female patients aged 65+ years and "high" risk for future fracture were eligible and screened for osteoporosis through an established screening program at an urban teaching hospital. RESULTS: We recruited 30 participants (9 males, 21 females), aged 65-88, who presented with a hip (n = 11), wrist (n = 11), shoulder (n = 6), or other (n = 2) fracture. Ten of the 30 fractures occurred inside the home and the remaining fractures occurred outside the home. Sustaining a fragility fracture was perceived as a traumatic event, both physically and emotionally. In general, participants used forceful, action-oriented words and referred to hard surfaces to describe the experience. Explanations for the fracture, other than bone quality, were often reported, especially that falls were "freak" or "fluke" events. Patients who sustained a fracture under more mundane circumstances seemed more likely to perceive a connection between the fracture and their bone health. CONCLUSIONS: The term fragility fracture was a misnomer for many older adults. By reexamining how this term is communicated to fracturepatients, health care providers may better facilitate patients' awareness of bone health.
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Ethel S Siris; Steven T Harris; Clifford J Rosen; Charles E Barr; James N Arvesen; Thomas A Abbott; Stuart Silverman Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Sarah D Berry; Elizabeth J Samelson; Marian T Hannan; Robert R McLean; Mei Lu; L Adrienne Cupples; Michele L Shaffer; Alexa L Beiser; Margaret Kelly-Hayes; Douglas P Kiel Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-10-08
Authors: Lora Giangregorio; L Dolovich; A Cranney; A Adili; J Debeer; A Papaioannou; L Thabane; J D Adachi Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-11-01
Authors: J E M Sale; M A Gignac; G Hawker; D Beaton; E Bogoch; F Webster; L Frankel; V Elliot-Gibson Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 4.507
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
Authors: B Merle; C Dupraz; J Haesebaert; L Barraud; M Aussedat; C Motteau; V Simon; A M Schott; M Flori Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: R Rizzoli; J Branco; M-L Brandi; S Boonen; O Bruyère; P Cacoub; C Cooper; A Diez-Perez; J Duder; R A Fielding; N C Harvey; M Hiligsmann; J A Kanis; J Petermans; J D Ringe; Y Tsouderos; J Weinman; J-Y Reginster Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 4.507