Literature DB >> 24984211

Effect of self-referral on bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment.

Amy H Warriner1, Ryan C Outman, Adrianne C Feldstein, Douglas W Roblin, Jeroan J Allison, Jeffrey R Curtis, David T Redden, Mary M Rix, Brandi E Robinson, Ana G Rosales, Monika M Safford, Kenneth G Saag.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite national guidelines recommending bone mineral density screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in women aged 65 years and older, many women do not receive initial screening.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of health system and patient-level interventions designed to increase appropriate DXA testing and osteoporosis treatment through (1) an invitation to self-refer for DXA (self-referral); (2) self-referral plus patient educational materials; and (3) usual care (UC, physician referral). RESEARCH
DESIGN: Parallel, group-randomized, controlled trials performed at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and Kaiser Permanente Georgia (KPG).
SUBJECTS: Women aged 65 years and older without a DXA in past 5 years. MEASURES: DXA completion rates 90 days after intervention mailing and osteoporosis medication receipt 180 days after initial intervention mailing.
RESULTS: From >12,000 eligible women, those randomized to self-referral were significantly more likely to receive a DXA than UC (13.0%-24.1% self-referral vs. 4.9%-5.9% UC, P<0.05). DXA rates did not significantly increase with patient educational materials. Osteoporosis was detected in a greater proportion of self-referral women compared with UC (P<0.001). The number needed to receive an invitation to result in a DXA in KPNW and KPG regions was approximately 5 and 12, respectively. New osteoporosis prescription rates were low (0.8%-3.4%) but significantly greater among self-referral versus UC in KPNW.
CONCLUSIONS: DXA rates significantly improved with a mailed invitation to schedule a scan without physician referral. Providing women the opportunity to self-refer may be an effective, low-cost strategy to increase access for recommended osteoporosis screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24984211      PMCID: PMC4101066          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000170

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  39 in total

1.  A covariance estimator for GEE with improved small-sample properties.

Authors:  L A Mancl; T A DeRouen
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Small-sample adjustments for Wald-type tests using sandwich estimators.

Authors:  M P Fay; B I Graubard
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Cluster-randomized trials.

Authors:  P M Fayers; M S Jordhøy; S Kaasa
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.762

4.  Small-sample adjustments in using the sandwich variance estimator in generalized estimating equations.

Authors:  Wei Pan; Melanie M Wall
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Why most interventions to improve physician prescribing do not seem to work.

Authors:  Sumit R Majumdar; Stephen B Soumerai
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-07-08       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness.

Authors:  Thomas Bodenheimer; Edward H Wagner; Kevin Grumbach
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-10-09       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The art and science of patient storytelling-harnessing narrative communication for behavioral interventions: the ACCE project.

Authors:  Thomas K Houston; Andrea Cherrington; Heather L Coley; Kimberly M Robinson; John A Trobaugh; Jessica H Williams; Pamela H Foster; Daniel E Ford; Ben S Gerber; Richard M Shewchuk; Jeroan J Allison
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2011-05-24

9.  Racial disparities in osteoporosis prevention in a managed care population.

Authors:  Amy S Mudano; Linda Casebeer; Fausto Patino; Jeroan J Allison; Norman W Weissman; Catarina I Kiefe; Sharina Person; Donna Gilbert; Kenneth G Saag
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 0.954

10.  Continuing bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis--for whom and for how long?

Authors:  Dennis M Black; Douglas C Bauer; Ann V Schwartz; Steven R Cummings; Clifford J Rosen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  13 in total

1.  Interventions to improve osteoporosis care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  J Martin; M Viprey; B Castagne; B Merle; C Giroudon; R Chapurlat; A-M Schott
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Complex interventions can increase osteoporosis investigations and treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Kastner; L Perrier; S E P Munce; C C Adhihetty; A Lau; J Hamid; V Treister; J Chan; Y Lai; S E Straus
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-10-18       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-activation and guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment after bone density testing: the PAADRN randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  P Cram; F D Wolinsky; Y Lou; S W Edmonds; S F Hall; D W Roblin; N C Wright; M P Jones; K G Saag
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Quality Measures and Quality Improvement Initiatives in Osteoporosis-an Update.

Authors:  S French; S Choden; Gabriela Schmajuk
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.096

6.  How Can We Improve Osteoporosis Care? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Quality Improvement Strategies for Osteoporosis.

Authors:  Smita Nayak; Susan L Greenspan
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 7.  Population-Based Osteoporosis Primary Prevention and Screening for Quality of Care in Osteoporosis, Current Osteoporosis Reports.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Carolyn J Crandall
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.096

Review 8.  Fracture Prediction by Computed Tomography and Finite Element Analysis: Current and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Fjola Johannesdottir; Brett Allaire; Mary L Bouxsein
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 5.096

9.  Correlations Between Abnormal Glucose Metabolism and Bone Mineral Density or Bone Metabolism.

Authors:  Yang Qu; Ming-Yang Kang; Rong-Peng Dong; Jian-Wu Zhao
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-03-13

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.