BACKGROUND: A bias in perceived risk for health outcomes, including fracture, exists. PURPOSE: We compared perceived risk and biases in perceived risk for fracture to fracture preventive behavior. METHODS: Women over age 55 (n = 2874) completed a survey five times over 5 years, and data was pulled from the medical record. Perceived risk was measured by asking women to rate their risk of fracture compared to similar women. Actual risk was measured using FRAX score. Bias was measured using an interaction between perceived and actual risk. RESULTS: Higher perceived risk was related to lower quality of life and self-reported health, more medication and calcium use, increased bone density scan use, and less walking. Bias was only associated with less medication use. Neither perceived risk nor bias predicted medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived risk, but not bias, may predict different fracture prevention behaviors. Clinicians may need to base interventions on risk perceptions.
BACKGROUND: A bias in perceived risk for health outcomes, including fracture, exists. PURPOSE: We compared perceived risk and biases in perceived risk for fracture to fracture preventive behavior. METHODS:Women over age 55 (n = 2874) completed a survey five times over 5 years, and data was pulled from the medical record. Perceived risk was measured by asking women to rate their risk of fracture compared to similar women. Actual risk was measured using FRAX score. Bias was measured using an interaction between perceived and actual risk. RESULTS: Higher perceived risk was related to lower quality of life and self-reported health, more medication and calcium use, increased bone density scan use, and less walking. Bias was only associated with less medication use. Neither perceived risk nor bias predicted medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived risk, but not bias, may predict different fracture prevention behaviors. Clinicians may need to base interventions on risk perceptions.
Authors: C L Gregson; E M Dennison; J E Compston; S Adami; J D Adachi; F A Anderson; S Boonen; R Chapurlat; A Díez-Pérez; S L Greenspan; F H Hooven; A Z LaCroix; J W Nieves; J C Netelenbos; J Pfeilschifter; M Rossini; C Roux; K G Saag; S Silverman; E S Siris; N B Watts; A Wyman; C Cooper Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Renu K Garg; Nicole L Glazer; Kerri L Wiggins; Katherine M Newton; Evan L Thacker; Nicholas L Smith; David S Siscovick; Bruce M Psaty; Susan R Heckbert Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: D M Black; S R Cummings; D B Karpf; J A Cauley; D E Thompson; M C Nevitt; D C Bauer; H K Genant; W L Haskell; R Marcus; S M Ott; J C Torner; S A Quandt; T F Reiss; K E Ensrud Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-12-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E S Siris; S Gehlbach; J D Adachi; S Boonen; R D Chapurlat; J E Compston; C Cooper; P Delmas; A Díez-Pérez; F H Hooven; A Z Lacroix; J C Netelenbos; J Pfeilschifter; M Rossini; C Roux; K G Saag; P Sambrook; S Silverman; N B Watts; A Wyman; S L Greenspan Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Rama Kalluru; Keith J Petrie; Andrew Grey; Zaynah Nisa; Anne M Horne; Greg D Gamble; Mark J Bolland Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dariusz Dolinski; Barbara Dolinska; Barbara Zmaczynska-Witek; Maciej Banach; Wojciech Kulesza Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 4.241