UNLABELLED: We examined patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after being screened through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Provider-level barriers to testing and treatment appeared to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on testing. INTRODUCTION: Post-fracture secondary prevention programs have had modest effects on bone densitometry rates and osteoporosis (OP) treatment initiation. Few studies have examined in depth the reasons that patients choose to seek or avoid investigation and treatment after screening through such a program. Our purpose was to examine patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after screening through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program (FCSP). METHODS: We conducted a prospective qualitative study in fragility fracture patients screened through one site of the FCSP. Eligible patients not on antiresorptive medication at the time of fracture were assessed by an osteoporosis screening coordinator and advised to follow up with their primary care physician for a BMD test and appropriate treatment. Participants were interviewed within 6, and within 18, months of their clinic visit. Fracture risk was assessed by the study team. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by two researchers. RESULTS: We conducted 51 interviews with 25 patients (22 females, 3 males) aged 50-79 years old, of whom 8 were deemed high risk for future fracture. Eighteen participants had a BMD test between baseline and follow-up and three reported receiving a prescription for pharmacotherapy. We categorized 21 participants as experiencing at least one barrier to BMD testing and appropriate treatment including health care providers telling participants that the fracture was not a fragility fracture, using participants' appearance/demographic information and X-rays to judge bone density, telling participants that a BMD test was not appropriate, failing to discuss fracture risk status, and giving unclear or incorrect information about treatment. CONCLUSION: We identified modifiable barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention from the patient's perspective. Provider-level barriers appeare to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on BMD testing.
UNLABELLED: We examined patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after being screened through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Provider-level barriers to testing and treatment appeared to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on testing. INTRODUCTION: Post-fracture secondary prevention programs have had modest effects on bone densitometry rates and osteoporosis (OP) treatment initiation. Few studies have examined in depth the reasons that patients choose to seek or avoid investigation and treatment after screening through such a program. Our purpose was to examine patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after screening through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program (FCSP). METHODS: We conducted a prospective qualitative study in fragility fracturepatients screened through one site of the FCSP. Eligible patients not on antiresorptive medication at the time of fracture were assessed by an osteoporosis screening coordinator and advised to follow up with their primary care physician for a BMD test and appropriate treatment. Participants were interviewed within 6, and within 18, months of their clinic visit. Fracture risk was assessed by the study team. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by two researchers. RESULTS: We conducted 51 interviews with 25 patients (22 females, 3 males) aged 50-79 years old, of whom 8 were deemed high risk for future fracture. Eighteen participants had a BMD test between baseline and follow-up and three reported receiving a prescription for pharmacotherapy. We categorized 21 participants as experiencing at least one barrier to BMD testing and appropriate treatment including health care providers telling participants that the fracture was not a fragility fracture, using participants' appearance/demographic information and X-rays to judge bone density, telling participants that a BMD test was not appropriate, failing to discuss fracture risk status, and giving unclear or incorrect information about treatment. CONCLUSION: We identified modifiable barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention from the patient's perspective. Provider-level barriers appeare to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on BMD testing.
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: J E M Sale; M A Gignac; L Frankel; G Hawker; D Beaton; V Elliot-Gibson; E Bogoch Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: W D Leslie; C Berger; L Langsetmo; L M Lix; J D Adachi; D A Hanley; G Ioannidis; R G Josse; C S Kovacs; T Towheed; S Kaiser; W P Olszynski; J C Prior; S Jamal; N Kreiger; D Goltzman Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sumit R Majumdar; Jeffrey A Johnson; Finlay A McAlister; Debbie Bellerose; Anthony S Russell; David A Hanley; Don W Morrish; Walter P Maksymowych; Brian H Rowe Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: S B Jaglal; G Hawker; V Bansod; N M Salbach; M Zwarenstein; J Carroll; D Brooks; C Cameron; E Bogoch; L Jaakkimainen; H Kreder Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Aaron T Seaman; Melissa Steffen; Taisha Doo; Heather S Healy; Samantha L Solimeo Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: L Chou; P Shamdasani; A M Briggs; F M Cicuttini; K Sullivan; K L M D Seneviwickrama; A E Wluka Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 4.507