P Cram1,2,3, F D Wolinsky4,5,6,7, Y Lou8, S W Edmonds3,9, S F Hall3, D W Roblin10,11, N C Wright12,13, M P Jones8, K G Saag13. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Mt. Sinai/UHN Hospitals, Toronto, Canada. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. fredric-wolinsky@uiowa.edu. 5. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, IA, USA. fredric-wolinsky@uiowa.edu. 6. University of Iowa College of Nursing, Iowa City, IA, USA. fredric-wolinsky@uiowa.edu. 7. The University of Iowa, 145 North Riverside Drive, CPHB N211, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. fredric-wolinsky@uiowa.edu. 8. Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, IA, USA. 9. University of Iowa College of Nursing, Iowa City, IA, USA. 10. Kaiser Permanente, Atlanta, GA, 30305, USA. 11. School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 12. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 13. Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
Patients often do not know or understand their bone density test results, and pharmacological treatment rates are low. In a clinical trial of 7749 patients, we used a tailored patient-activation result letter accompanied by a bone health brochure to improve appropriate pharmacological treatment. Treatment rates, however, did not improve. INTRODUCTION: Patients often do not know or understand their dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test results, which may lead to suboptimal care. We tested whether usual care augmented by a tailored patient-activation DXA result letter accompanied by an educational brochure would improve guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment compared to usual care only. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, pragmatic clinical trial at three health care centers in the USA. We randomized 7749 patients≥50years old and presenting for DXA between February 2012 and August 2014. The primary clinical endpoint at 12 and 52 weeks post-DXA was receiving guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment. We also examined four of the steps along the pathway from DXA testing to that clinical endpoint, including (1) receiving and (2) understanding their DXA results and (3) having subsequent contact with their provider and (4) discussing their results and options. RESULTS:Mean age was 66.6 years, 83.8 % were women, and 75.3 % were non-Hispanic whites. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed that guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment was not improved at either 12 weeks (65.1 vs. 64.3 %, p = 0.506) or 52 weeks (65.2 vs. 63.8 %, p = 0.250) post-DXA, even though patients in the intervention group were more likely (all p < 0.001) to recall receiving their DXA results letter at 12 weeks, correctly identify their results at 12 and 52 weeks, have contact with their provider at 52 weeks, and have discussed their results with their provider at 12 and 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: A tailored DXA result letter and educational brochure failed to improve guideline-concordant care in patients who received DXA.
RCT Entities:
Patients often do not know or understand their bone density test results, and pharmacological treatment rates are low. In a clinical trial of 7749 patients, we used a tailored patient-activation result letter accompanied by a bone health brochure to improve appropriate pharmacological treatment. Treatment rates, however, did not improve. INTRODUCTION:Patients often do not know or understand their dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test results, which may lead to suboptimal care. We tested whether usual care augmented by a tailored patient-activation DXA result letter accompanied by an educational brochure would improve guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment compared to usual care only. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, pragmatic clinical trial at three health care centers in the USA. We randomized 7749 patients ≥50 years old and presenting for DXA between February 2012 and August 2014. The primary clinical endpoint at 12 and 52 weeks post-DXA was receiving guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment. We also examined four of the steps along the pathway from DXA testing to that clinical endpoint, including (1) receiving and (2) understanding their DXA results and (3) having subsequent contact with their provider and (4) discussing their results and options. RESULTS: Mean age was 66.6 years, 83.8 % were women, and 75.3 % were non-Hispanic whites. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed that guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment was not improved at either 12 weeks (65.1 vs. 64.3 %, p = 0.506) or 52 weeks (65.2 vs. 63.8 %, p = 0.250) post-DXA, even though patients in the intervention group were more likely (all p < 0.001) to recall receiving their DXA results letter at 12 weeks, correctly identify their results at 12 and 52 weeks, have contact with their provider at 52 weeks, and have discussed their results with their provider at 12 and 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: A tailored DXA result letter and educational brochure failed to improve guideline-concordant care in patients who received DXA.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Amy H Warriner; 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 Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Suzanne E Mitchell; Paula M Gardiner; Ekaterina Sadikova; Jessica M Martin; Brian W Jack; Judith H Hibbard; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Patricia M Ciaschini; Sharon E Straus; Lisa R Dolovich; Ron A Goeree; Karen M Leung; Carol R Woods; Greg M Zimmerman; Sumit R Majumdar; Silvana Spadafora; Luke A Fera; Hui N Lee Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Stephanie W Edmonds; Peter Cram; Xin Lu; Douglas W Roblin; Nicole C Wright; Kenneth G Saag; Samantha L Solimeo Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Stephanie W Edmonds; Samantha L Solimeo; Xin Lu; Douglas W Roblin; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: S L Solimeo; V-T T Nguyen; S W Edmonds; Y Lou; D W Roblin; K G Saag; P Cram; F D Wolinsky Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: F D Wolinsky; S F Hall; Y Lou; S W Edmonds; K G Saag; D W Roblin; N C Wright; M P Jones; P Cram; J R Curtis; S L Morgan; J A Schlechte; J H Williams; D J Zelman Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Peter Cram; Kenneth G Saag; Yiyue Lou; Stephanie W Edmonds; Sylvie F Hall; Douglas W Roblin; Nicole C Wright; Michael P Jones; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Fredric D Wolinsky; Yiyue Lou; Stephanie W Edmonds; Sylvie F Hall; Michael P Jones; Nicole C Wright; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram; Douglas W Roblin Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Douglas W Roblin; David Zelman; Sally Plummer; Brandi E Robinson; Yiyue Lou; Stephanie W Edmonds; Fredric D Wolinsky; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram Journal: Perm J Date: 2017
Authors: Sylvie F Hall; Stephanie W Edmonds; Yiyue Lou; Peter Cram; Douglas W Roblin; Kenneth G Saag; Nicole C Wright; Michael P Jones; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2017-06-08
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