J E M Sale1,2, M A Gignac3,4, G Hawker5,6,7, D Beaton8,5, L Frankel8, E Bogoch9,10, V Elliot-Gibson8. 1. Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. salej@smh.ca. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. salej@smh.ca. 3. Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Osteoporosis Research Program, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. 9. Mobility Program, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 10. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We examined fracture patients' understanding of "high" fracture risk after they were screened through a post-fracture secondary prevention program and educated about their risk verbally, numerically, and graphically. Our findings suggest that messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and need to be modified to better suit patients' needs. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to examine fracture patients' understanding of high risk for future fracture. METHODS: We conducted an in-depth qualitative study in patients who were high risk for future fracture. Patients were screened through the Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program where they were educated about fracture risk: verbally told they were "high risk" for future fracture, given a numerical prompt that they had a >20 % chance of future fracture over the next 10 years, and given a visual graph highlighting the "high risk" segment. This information about fracture risk was also relayed to patients' primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. Participants were interviewed at baseline (within six months of fracture) and follow-up (after visit with a PCP and/or specialist) and asked to recall their understanding of risk and whether it applied to them. RESULTS: We recruited 27 patients (20 females, 7 males) aged 51-87 years old. Fractures were sustained at the wrist (n = 7), hip (n = 7), vertebrae (n = 2), and multiple or other locations (n = 11). While most participants recalled they had been labeled as "high risk" (verbal cue), most were unable to correctly recall the other elements of risk (numerical, graphical). Further, approximately half of the patients who recalled they were high risk did not believe that high risk applied, or had meaning, to them. Participants also had difficulty explaining what they were at risk for. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that health care providers' messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and that these messages need to be modified to better suit patients' needs.
UNLABELLED: We examined fracturepatients' understanding of "high" fracture risk after they were screened through a post-fracture secondary prevention program and educated about their risk verbally, numerically, and graphically. Our findings suggest that messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and need to be modified to better suit patients' needs. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to examine fracturepatients' understanding of high risk for future fracture. METHODS: We conducted an in-depth qualitative study in patients who were high risk for future fracture. Patients were screened through the Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program where they were educated about fracture risk: verbally told they were "high risk" for future fracture, given a numerical prompt that they had a >20 % chance of future fracture over the next 10 years, and given a visual graph highlighting the "high risk" segment. This information about fracture risk was also relayed to patients' primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. Participants were interviewed at baseline (within six months of fracture) and follow-up (after visit with a PCP and/or specialist) and asked to recall their understanding of risk and whether it applied to them. RESULTS: We recruited 27 patients (20 females, 7 males) aged 51-87 years old. Fractures were sustained at the wrist (n = 7), hip (n = 7), vertebrae (n = 2), and multiple or other locations (n = 11). While most participants recalled they had been labeled as "high risk" (verbal cue), most were unable to correctly recall the other elements of risk (numerical, graphical). Further, approximately half of the patients who recalled they were high risk did not believe that high risk applied, or had meaning, to them. Participants also had difficulty explaining what they were at risk for. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that health care providers' messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and that these messages need to be modified to better suit patients' needs.
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: John A Kanis; Anders Oden; Helena Johansson; Fredrik Borgström; Oskar Ström; Eugene McCloskey Journal: Bone Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 4.398
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: K Akesson; D Marsh; P J Mitchell; A R McLellan; J Stenmark; D D Pierroz; C Kyer; C Cooper Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: B Mugnier; A Daumas; S Doddoli; S Belmeliani; A-L Couderc; B Mizzi; P Lévêque; P Villani Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Joanna E M Sale; Matthew Gray; Daniel Mancuso; Taucha Inrig; Gilles Boire; Marie-Claude Beaulieu; Larry Funnell; Earl Bogoch Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Karin M A Swart; Myrthe van Vilsteren; Wesley van Hout; Esther Draak; Babette C van der Zwaard; Henriette E van der Horst; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg; Petra J M Elders Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: S N Morin; M Djekic-Ivankovic; L Funnell; L Giangregorio; I B Rodrigues; R Ridout; S Feldman; S Kim; H McDonald-Blumer; G Kline; W E Ward; N Santesso; W D Leslie Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Joanna E M Sale; Monique Gignac; Lucy Frankel; Stephen Thielke; Earl Bogoch; Victoria Elliot-Gibson; Gillian Hawker; Larry Funnell Journal: Health Expect Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 3.377