Joan M Neuner1, Marilyn M Schapira. 1. From the Department of Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Division of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many older patients express concerns about medication risks, and have higher risk thresholds than physicians for cardiovascular preventive medications. We hypothesized that patients have relatively high risk thresholds for fracture preventive medications. METHODS: Women ≥ 60 years old were recruited from 3 primary care internal medicine clinics in Wisconsin. Participants were provided information regarding fracture risks and treatment risks and benefits, followed by a series of vignettes depicting a 70-year-old woman at baseline fracture risks between 5-50%. Fracture risks were shown graphically and treatment side effects were provided for each vignette, and participants were asked to respond regarding whether they would accept treatment. The association of vignette treatment acceptance with participant beliefs regarding medication risks was examined in analyses adjusted for perceived risk of medications, patient numeracy, and prior respondent experience with osteoporosis. RESULTS: The mean age of women in the cohort was 69.4 years (SD 7.29). Ninety-one percent were non-Hispanic whites, 34% reported a history of fracture, and 20.3% a history of osteoporosis. Subjects varied substantially in their responses to vignettes, but only 51% reported they would accept prescription osteoporosis treatment at the threshold currently recommended by national physician treatment guidelines, and fewer would accept treatment at lower risks. Belief that medications are generally not worth their risks was associated with lower acceptance of treatment at all levels of fracture risk. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variability in preferences for postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment. Presentation of individualized fracture risks as recommended by current guidelines has potential to allow better targeting to higher-risk patients, but further work is needed regarding how to present this information and counsel patients.
OBJECTIVE: Many older patients express concerns about medication risks, and have higher risk thresholds than physicians for cardiovascular preventive medications. We hypothesized that patients have relatively high risk thresholds for fracture preventive medications. METHODS:Women ≥ 60 years old were recruited from 3 primary care internal medicine clinics in Wisconsin. Participants were provided information regarding fracture risks and treatment risks and benefits, followed by a series of vignettes depicting a 70-year-old woman at baseline fracture risks between 5-50%. Fracture risks were shown graphically and treatment side effects were provided for each vignette, and participants were asked to respond regarding whether they would accept treatment. The association of vignette treatment acceptance with participant beliefs regarding medication risks was examined in analyses adjusted for perceived risk of medications, patient numeracy, and prior respondent experience with osteoporosis. RESULTS: The mean age of women in the cohort was 69.4 years (SD 7.29). Ninety-one percent were non-Hispanic whites, 34% reported a history of fracture, and 20.3% a history of osteoporosis. Subjects varied substantially in their responses to vignettes, but only 51% reported they would accept prescription osteoporosis treatment at the threshold currently recommended by national physician treatment guidelines, and fewer would accept treatment at lower risks. Belief that medications are generally not worth their risks was associated with lower acceptance of treatment at all levels of fracture risk. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variability in preferences for postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment. Presentation of individualized fracture risks as recommended by current guidelines has potential to allow better targeting to higher-risk patients, but further work is needed regarding how to present this information and counsel patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
OSTEOPOROSIS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; WOMEN
Authors: Nelson B Watts; John P Bilezikian; Pauline M Camacho; Susan L Greenspan; Steven T Harris; Stephen F Hodgson; Michael Kleerekoper; Marjorie M Luckey; Michael R McClung; Rachel Pessah Pollack; Steven M Petak Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: D M Black; M Steinbuch; L Palermo; P Dargent-Molina; R Lindsay; M S Hoseyni; O Johnell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sundeep Khosla; David Burr; Jane Cauley; David W Dempster; Peter R Ebeling; Dieter Felsenberg; Robert F Gagel; Vincente Gilsanz; Theresa Guise; Sreenivas Koka; Laurie K McCauley; Joan McGowan; Marc D McKee; Suresh Mohla; David G Pendrys; Lawrence G Raisz; Salvatore L Ruggiero; David M Shafer; Lillian Shum; Stuart L Silverman; Catherine H Van Poznak; Nelson Watts; Sook-Bin Woo; Elizabeth Shane Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Saskia M F Pluijm; Bart Koes; Chris de Laet; Natasja M Van Schoor; Natalia O Kuchuk; Fernando Rivadeneira; Johan P Mackenbach; Paul Lips; Huibert A Pols; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Michelle Gates; Jennifer Pillay; Guylène Thériault; Heather Limburg; Roland Grad; Scott Klarenbach; Christina Korownyk; Donna Reynolds; John J Riva; Brett D Thombs; Gregory A Kline; William D Leslie; Susan Courage; Ben Vandermeer; Robin Featherstone; Lisa Hartling Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2019-08-23