Jana-Carina Morfeld1, Vera Vennedey1, Dirk Müller2, Dawid Pieper3, Stephanie Stock1. 1. Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, The University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Gleueler Straße 176-178, 50935, Cologne, Germany. 2. Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, The University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Gleueler Straße 176-178, 50935, Cologne, Germany. dirk.mueller@uk-koeln.de. 3. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
This review summarizes evidence regarding the effects of patient education in osteoporosis prevention and treatment. The included studies reveal mixed results on a variety of endpoints. Methodological improvem ent of future RCTs (e.g. with regard to randomization and duration of follow-up) might yield more conclusive evidence on the effects of patient education in osteoporosis INTRODUCTION: This review aims to evaluate the effects of patient education on osteoporosis prevention and treatment results. METHODS: Multiple databases including PubMed and Embase were searched until February 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible if they included adults diagnosed with or at risk of osteoporosis and assessed patient education interventions (group- or individual-based). Outcomes regarding osteoporosis management including initiation of and adherence to pharmacological therapy, physical activity, calcium and vitamin D intake, changes in smoking behaviour, fractures, quality of life (QoL) and osteoporosis knowledge were evaluated. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used to assess the internal validity of included trials. RESULTS: Fifteen articles (13 different studies) published between 2001 and 2013 were included (group-based education = 7, individual-based education = 5, both = 1). The general risk of bias was considered as moderate to high. The effects on 'bone mineral density (BMD) testing and/or pharmacological therapy' (composite endpoint), 'calcium intake' and 'vitamin D intake' as well as 'osteoporosis knowledge' were statistically significant in favour of the intervention in ≥50% of the studies analysing these outcomes. Differences between the intervention and the control group regarding 'pharmacological therapy', 'medication adherence', 'physical activity', 'fractures' and 'QoL' were found to be statistically significant in <50% of the trials. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that it is still unclear whether patient education is beneficial and whether it has a significant and clinically relevant impact on osteoporosis management results. Educational programmes for osteoporosis require further investigation within the context of well-conducted RCTs.
This review summarizes evidence regarding the effects of patient education in osteoporosis prevention and treatment. The included studies reveal mixed results on a variety of endpoints. Methodological improvem ent of future RCTs (e.g. with regard to randomization and duration of follow-up) might yield more conclusive evidence on the effects of patient education in osteoporosis INTRODUCTION: This review aims to evaluate the effects of patient education on osteoporosis prevention and treatment results. METHODS: Multiple databases including PubMed and Embase were searched until February 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible if they included adults diagnosed with or at risk of osteoporosis and assessed patient education interventions (group- or individual-based). Outcomes regarding osteoporosis management including initiation of and adherence to pharmacological therapy, physical activity, calcium and vitamin D intake, changes in smoking behaviour, fractures, quality of life (QoL) and osteoporosis knowledge were evaluated. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used to assess the internal validity of included trials. RESULTS: Fifteen articles (13 different studies) published between 2001 and 2013 were included (group-based education = 7, individual-based education = 5, both = 1). The general risk of bias was considered as moderate to high. The effects on 'bone mineral density (BMD) testing and/or pharmacological therapy' (composite endpoint), 'calcium intake' and 'vitamin D intake' as well as 'osteoporosis knowledge' were statistically significant in favour of the intervention in ≥50% of the studies analysing these outcomes. Differences between the intervention and the control group regarding 'pharmacological therapy', 'medication adherence', 'physical activity', 'fractures' and 'QoL' were found to be statistically significant in <50% of the trials. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that it is still unclear whether patient education is beneficial and whether it has a significant and clinically relevant impact on osteoporosis management results. Educational programmes for osteoporosis require further investigation within the context of well-conducted RCTs.
Authors: Lesley Wood; Matthias Egger; Lise Lotte Gluud; Kenneth F Schulz; Peter Jüni; Douglas G Altman; Christian Gluud; Richard M Martin; Anthony J G Wood; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-03-03
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
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: Derek S Tsang; Jennifer M Jones; Osai Samadi; Suhayb Shah; Nicholas Mitsakakis; Charles N Catton; William Jeon; Joshua To; Henriette Breunis; Shabbir M H Alibhai Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Aaron T Seaman; Melissa J A Steffen; Jennifer M Van Tiem; Shylo Wardyn; Xiomara Santana; Karla L Miller; Samantha L Solimeo Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: D Pinto; M Alshahrani; R Chapurlat; T Chevalley; E Dennison; B M Camargos; A Papaioannou; S Silverman; J-F Kaux; N E Lane; J Morales Torres; J Paccou; R Rizzoli; O Bruyere Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J A Kanis; N C Harvey; E McCloskey; O Bruyère; N Veronese; M Lorentzon; C Cooper; R Rizzoli; G Adib; N Al-Daghri; C Campusano; M Chandran; B Dawson-Hughes; K Javaid; F Jiwa; H Johansson; J K Lee; E Liu; D Messina; O Mkinsi; D Pinto; D Prieto-Alhambra; K Saag; W Xia; L Zakraoui; J -Y Reginster Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: D Cornelissen; S de Kunder; L Si; J-Y Reginster; S Evers; A Boonen; M Hiligsmann Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Dennis Cornelissen; Annelies Boonen; Silvia Evers; Joop P van den Bergh; Sandrine Bours; Caroline E Wyers; Sander van Kuijk; Marsha van Oostwaard; Trudy van der Weijden; Mickaël Hiligsmann Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Agnieszka Nawrat-Szołtysik; Zuzanna Miodońska; Ryszard Zarzeczny; Izabela Zając-Gawlak; Józef Opara; Alicja Grzesińska; Beata Matyja; Anna Polak Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nicky Wilson; Emailie Hurkmans; Jo Adams; Margot Bakkers; Petra Balážová; Mark Baxter; Anne-Birgitte Blavnsfeldt; Karine Briot; Catharina Chiari; Cyrus Cooper; Razvan Dragoi; Gabriele Gäbler; Willem Lems; Erika Mosor; Sandra Pais; Cornelia Simon; Paul Studenic; Simon Tilley; Jenny de la Torre; Tanja A Stamm Journal: RMD Open Date: 2020-01
Authors: Jo Adams; Nicky Wilson; Emalie Hurkmans; Margot Bakkers; Petra Balážová; Mark Baxter; Anne-Birgitte Blavnsfeldt; Karine Briot; Catharina Chiari; Cyrus Cooper; Razvan Gabriel Dragoi; Gabriele Gäbler; Willem Lems; Erika Mosor; Sandra Pais; Cornelia Simon; Paul Studenic; Simon Tilley; Jenny de la Torre-Aboki; Tanja A Stamm Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 27.973