Stephanie W Edmonds1, Samantha L Solimeo2, Vu-Thuy Nguyen3, Nicole C Wright4, Douglas W Roblin5, Kenneth G Saag6, Peter Cram7. 1. Project Coordinator and a Doctoral Candidate at the College of Nursing, University of Iowa in Iowa City and a Veterans Affairs Quality Scholar at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System. stephanie-edmonds@uiowa.edu. 2. Assistant Professor at the Carver College of Medicine University of Iowa and an Investigator at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System. samantha-solimeo@uiowa.edu. 3. Graduate Research Assistant and Doctoral Candidate at the College of Public Health, University of Iowa in Iowa City. thuy-v-nguyen@uiowa.edu. 4. Assistant Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. ncwright@uab.edu. 5. Professor at the School of Public Health at Georgia State University and a Consulting Research Scientist with the Center for Clinical and Outcomes Research at Kaiser Permanente in Atlanta. droblin@gsu.edu. 6. Professor of Medicine in the Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. ksaag@uabmc.edu. 7. Director of the Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics at University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital and a Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada. peter.cram@uhn.ca.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patient education materials can provide important information related to osteoporosis prevention and treatment. However, available osteoporosis education materials fail to follow best-practice guidelines for patient education. OBJECTIVE: To develop an educational brochure on bone health for adults aged 50 years and older using mixed-method, semistructured interviews. DESIGN: This project consisted of 3 phases. In Phase 1, we developed written content that included information about osteoporosis. Additionally, we designed 2 graphic-rich brochures, Brochure A (photographs) and Brochure B (illustrations). In Phase 2, interviewers presented the text-only document and both brochure designs to 53 participants from an academic Medical Center in the Midwest and an outpatient clinic in the Southeastern region of the US. Interviewers used open- and closed-ended questions to elicit opinions regarding the brochures. In Phase 3, using feedback from Phase 2, we revised the brochure and presented it to 11 participants at a third site in the Southeastern US. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' comprehension of brochure text and acceptability of brochure design. RESULTS: We enrolled 64 participants. Most were women, white, and college-educated, with an average age of 66.1 years. Participants were able to restate the basic content of the brochure and preferred Brochure A's use of photographs. CONCLUSIONS: Using feedback from older adults, we developed and refined a brochure for communicating bone health information to older adults at risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures. The methods outlined in this article may serve to guide others in developing health educational brochures for chronic medical conditions.
CONTEXT: Patient education materials can provide important information related to osteoporosis prevention and treatment. However, available osteoporosis education materials fail to follow best-practice guidelines for patient education. OBJECTIVE: To develop an educational brochure on bone health for adults aged 50 years and older using mixed-method, semistructured interviews. DESIGN: This project consisted of 3 phases. In Phase 1, we developed written content that included information about osteoporosis. Additionally, we designed 2 graphic-rich brochures, Brochure A (photographs) and Brochure B (illustrations). In Phase 2, interviewers presented the text-only document and both brochure designs to 53 participants from an academic Medical Center in the Midwest and an outpatient clinic in the Southeastern region of the US. Interviewers used open- and closed-ended questions to elicit opinions regarding the brochures. In Phase 3, using feedback from Phase 2, we revised the brochure and presented it to 11 participants at a third site in the Southeastern US. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' comprehension of brochure text and acceptability of brochure design. RESULTS: We enrolled 64 participants. Most were women, white, and college-educated, with an average age of 66.1 years. Participants were able to restate the basic content of the brochure and preferred Brochure A's use of photographs. CONCLUSIONS: Using feedback from older adults, we developed and refined a brochure for communicating bone health information to older adults at risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures. The methods outlined in this article may serve to guide others in developing health educational brochures for chronic medical conditions.
Authors: Peter Cram; Gary E Rosenthal; Robert Ohsfeldt; Robert B Wallace; Janet Schlechte; Gordon D Schiff Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2005-02
Authors: Victor M Montori; Nilay D Shah; Laurie J Pencille; Megan E Branda; Holly K Van Houten; Brian A Swiglo; Rebecca L Kesman; Sidna M Tulledge-Scheitel; Thomas M Jaeger; Ruth E Johnson; Gregory A Bartel; L Joseph Melton; Robert A Wermers Journal: Am J Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Suzanne M Cadarette; Dorcas E Beaton; Monique A M Gignac; Susan B Jaglal; Leigh Dickson; Gillian A Hawker Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Lora Giangregorio; L Dolovich; A Cranney; A Adili; J Debeer; A Papaioannou; L Thabane; J D Adachi Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-11-01
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Ahsan M Arozullah; Paul R Yarnold; Charles L Bennett; Robert C Soltysik; Michael S Wolf; Rosario M Ferreira; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Stacey Costello; Adil Shakir; Caroline Denwood; Fred B Bryant; Terry Davis Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Stephanie W Edmonds; Fredric D Wolinsky; Alan J Christensen; Xin Lu; Michael P Jones; Douglas W Roblin; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 2.226
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: 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: M J Rothmann; S Möller; T Holmberg; M Højberg; J Gram; M Bech; K Brixen; A P Hermann; C-C Glüer; R Barkmann; K H Rubin Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.507
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: F D Wolinsky; Y Lou; S W Edmonds; K G Saag; D W Roblin; N C Wright; M P Jones; P Cram Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 4.507
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