Literature DB >> 28891035

Equal treatment: no evidence of gender inequity in osteoporosis management in a coordinator-based fragility fracture screening program.

H Ansari1,2, D E Beaton3,4,5, R Sujic1, N K Rotondi1, J D Cullen1, M Slater6, J E M Sale1,7, R Jain8, E R Bogoch9,10.   

Abstract

We evaluated gender imbalance in osteoporosis management in a provincial coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. This establishes that a systemic approach with interventions for all fragility fracture patients can eliminate the gender inequity that is often observed. INRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate an Ontario-based fracture prevention program for its ability to address the well-documented gender imbalance in osteoporosis (OP) management, by incorporating its integrated fracture risk assessments within a needs-based evaluation of equity.
METHODS: Fragility fracture patients (≥ 50 years) who were treatment naïve at screening and completed follow-up within 6 months of screening were studied. Patients who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) testing done in the year prior to their current fracture were excluded. All participants had BMD testing conducted through the Ontario OP Strategy Fracture Screening and Prevention program, thus providing us with fracture risk assessment data. Our primary study outcome was treatment initiation at follow-up within 6 months of screening. Gender differences were compared using Fisher's exact test, at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: After adjusting for subsequent fracture risk, study participants did not show a statistically significant gender difference in pharmacotherapy initiation at follow-up (p > 0.05). 68.4% of women and 66.2% of men at high risk were treated within 6 months of screening.
CONCLUSION: Needs-based analyses show no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. An intensive coordinator-based fracture prevention model adopted in Ontario, Canada was not associated with gender inequity in OP treatment of fragility fracture patients after fracture risk adjustment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coordinator-based program; Equity; Fracture risk assessment; Fragility fracture; Gender

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28891035     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4206-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  33 in total

1.  2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary.

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

2.  A framework for the study of access to medical care.

Authors:  L A Aday; R Andersen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1974       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men.

Authors:  Patrick Haentjens; Jay Magaziner; Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Dirk Vanderschueren; Koen Milisen; Brigitte Velkeniers; Steven Boonen
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Awareness of osteoporosis and compliance with management guidelines in patients with newly diagnosed low-impact fractures.

Authors:  H Castel; D Y Bonneh; M Sherf; Y Liel
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Addition of a fracture risk assessment to a coordinator's role improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening in a fragility fracture screening program.

Authors:  D E Beaton; M Vidmar; K B Pitzul; R Sujic; N K Rotondi; E R Bogoch; J E M Sale; R Jain; J Weldon
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Construction and validation of a simplified fracture risk assessment tool for Canadian women and men: results from the CaMos and Manitoba cohorts.

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

Review 7.  Sex and gender considerations in male patients with osteoporosis.

Authors:  Christopher J Dy; Lauren E Lamont; Quang V Ton; Joseph M Lane
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  A population-based analysis of the post-fracture care gap 1996-2008: the situation is not improving.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Giangregorio; M Yogendran; M Azimaee; S Morin; C Metge; P Caetano; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Defining equity in health.

Authors:  P Braveman; S Gruskin
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Effect of hospitalist consultation on treatment of osteoporosis in hip fracture patients.

Authors:  Carolyn M Jachna; Jeff Whittle; Barbara Lukert; Leland Graves; Tarun Bhargava
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-07-18       Impact factor: 4.507

View more
  2 in total

1.  Patients 80 + have similar medication initiation rates to those aged 50-79 in Ontario FLS.

Authors:  J E M Sale; A Yang; V Elliot-Gibson; R Jain; R Sujic; D Linton; J Weldon; L Frankel; E Bogoch
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status are not consistently provided in osteoporosis guidelines.

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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.