Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study.
FRAX®
Fracture
Osteoporosis
Patient-healthcare professional communication
Risk communication
Shared decision-making
Visual aids
Journal
Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA
ISSN: 1433-2965
Titre abrégé: Osteoporos Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9100105
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2024
Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
24
08
2023
accepted:
18
10
2023
medline:
15
2
2024
pubmed:
13
11
2023
entrez:
13
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk. The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication. To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture. A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk. There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37955683
doi: 10.1007/s00198-023-06955-9
pii: 10.1007/s00198-023-06955-9
pmc: PMC10866759
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
451-468Subventions
Organisme : Versus Arthritis
ID : 19583
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_21003
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UP_A620_1015
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12011/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Johnell O, Kanis J (2005) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 16 Suppl 2:S3–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00198-004-1702-6
Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY (2019) Executive summary of European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Aging Clin Exp Res 31:15–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40520-018-1109-4
doi: 10.1007/S40520-018-1109-4
pubmed: 30612282
Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Harvey NC et al (2022) Intervention thresholds and diagnostic thresholds in the management of osteoporosis. Aging Clin Exp Res 34:3155. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40520-022-02216-7
doi: 10.1007/S40520-022-02216-7
pubmed: 36344804
pmcid: 9719445
Beaudart C, Hiligsmann M, Li N et al (2022) Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review. Osteoporos Int 33:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00198-021-06151-7
doi: 10.1007/S00198-021-06151-7
pubmed: 34559256
Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H et al (2010) Development and use of FRAX in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 21(Suppl 2):S407–S413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1253-y
doi: 10.1007/s00198-010-1253-y
pubmed: 20464374
Robinson JH, Callister LC, Berry JA, Dearing KA (2008) Patient-centered care and adherence: definitions and applications to improve outcomes. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 20:600–607
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2008.00360.x
pubmed: 19120591
Sale JEM, Hawker G, Cameron C et al (2015) Perceived messages about bone health after a fracture are not consistent across healthcare providers. Rheumatol Int 35:97–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-014-3079-y
doi: 10.1007/s00296-014-3079-y
pubmed: 24962740
Dewan N, MacDermid JC, MacIntyre NJ, Grewal R (2019) Therapist’s practice patterns for subsequent fall/osteoporotic fracture prevention for patients with a distal radius fracture. J Hand Ther 32:497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2018.03.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2018.03.001
pubmed: 29705078
Lewiecki EM (2011) The role of risk communication in the care of osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 9:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-011-0056-1
doi: 10.1007/s11914-011-0056-1
pubmed: 21505788
Zoccarato F, Ceolin C, Trevisan C et al (2022) Comparison between real-world practice and application of the FRAX algorithm in the treatment of osteoporosis. Aging Clin Exp Res 34:2807. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40520-022-02212-X
doi: 10.1007/S40520-022-02212-X
pubmed: 35972688
pmcid: 9675657
Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J (2003) Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care 15:261–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/INTQHC/MZG031
doi: 10.1093/INTQHC/MZG031
pubmed: 12803354
Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R (2011) Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Med Decis Making 31:444–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10373805
doi: 10.1177/0272989X10373805
pubmed: 20671213
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA et al (2007) Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making 27:672–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07304449
doi: 10.1177/0272989X07304449
pubmed: 17641137
Ayers C, Kansagara D, Lazur B et al (2023) Effectiveness and safety of treatments to prevent fractures in people with low bone mass or primary osteoporosis: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis for the American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med 176:182–195. https://doi.org/10.7326/M22-0684/SUPPL_FILE/M22-0684_SUPPLEMENT.PDF
doi: 10.7326/M22-0684/SUPPL_FILE/M22-0684_SUPPLEMENT.PDF
pubmed: 36592455
Simpson EL, Martyn-St James M, Hamilton J et al (2020) Clinical effectiveness of denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab, and teriparatide for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Bone 130:115081. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BONE.2019.115081
Mishra P, Pandey CM, Singh U et al (2019) Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann Card Anaesth 22:67–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
doi: 10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
pubmed: 30648682
pmcid: 6350423
de Wit M, Cooper C, Tugwell P et al (2019) Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes: results of an expert group meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Aging Clin Exp Res 31:905–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40520-019-01193-8
doi: 10.1007/S40520-019-01193-8
pubmed: 30993659
pmcid: 6589151
Sale JEM, Gignac MA, Hawker G et al (2016) Patients do not have a consistent understanding of high risk for future fracture: a qualitative study of patients from a post-fracture secondary prevention program. Osteoporos Int 27:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3214-y
doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3214-y
pubmed: 26115943
Jakobsen PR, Hermann AP, Søndergaard J et al (2018) Left in limbo – experiences and needs among postmenopausal women newly diagnosed with osteoporosis without preceding osteoporotic fractures: A qualitative study. Post Reprod Health 24:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053369118755189
doi: 10.1177/2053369118755189
pubmed: 29392982
Gonnelli S, Caffarelli C, Rossi S et al (2016) How the knowledge of fracture risk might influence adherence to oral therapy of osteoporosis in Italy: the ADEOST study. Aging Clin Exp Res 28:459–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40520-016-0538-1
doi: 10.1007/S40520-016-0538-1
pubmed: 26873817
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):CD001431
Paskins Z, Torres Roldan VD, Hawarden AW et al (2020) Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan. Osteoporos Int 31:1837–1851
doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05479-w
pubmed: 32500301
Nogués X, Carbonell MC, Canals L et al (2022) Current situation of shared decision making in osteoporosis: a comprehensive literature review of patient decision aids and decision drivers. Health Sci Rep 5:e849. https://doi.org/10.1002/HSR2.849
doi: 10.1002/HSR2.849
pubmed: 36425899
pmcid: 9679236
Edmonds SW, Cram P, Lu X et al (2014) Improving bone mineral density reporting to patients with an illustration of personal fracture risk. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 14:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0101-y
doi: 10.1186/s12911-014-0101-y
Adler RA (2014) Osteoporosis in men: A review. Bone Res 2:14001
Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A et al (2013) Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7/FIGURES/1
doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7/FIGURES/1