Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with tailored fracture risk tool delivered via a patient portal

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

We tested the feasibility of a fracture prevention decision aid in an online patient portal. The decision aid was acceptable for patients and successfully decreased decisional conflict. This study suggests the possible utility of leveraging the patient portal to enhance patient education and decision making in osteoporosis care.

Introduction

Although interventions have improved osteoporosis screening and/or treatment for certain populations of high-risk patients, recent national studies suggest that large-scale uptake of these interventions has been limited. We aimed to determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of a patient portal-based osteoporosis decision aid (DA).

Methods

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of primary care patients aged ≥55 who were enrolled in a patient portal and had a T-score of <−1. Intervention subjects were provided a link to a patient DA. The DA contained a 10-year fracture risk calculator, summary of medication risks and benefits (prescription and nonprescription), and an elicitation of values. Subjects completed questionnaires assessing the primary outcomes of decisional conflict and preparation for decision making and secondary outcomes related to feasibility and planning for a larger trial. Charts were reviewed for physician-subject interactions and medication uptake.

Results

The DA was acceptable to subjects, but 17 % of the patients in the decision aid arm incorrectly entered their T-scores into FRAX-based risk calculator. Decisional conflict was lower post-intervention for those who were randomized to the decision aid arm compared to controls (17.8 vs. 47.1, p < .001), and there was a significant difference in the percentage of patients who made a treatment decision at 3 months. No significant differences were observed in medication uptake.

Conclusions

A portal-based osteoporosis DA was acceptable and improved several measures of decision quality. Given its effect on improving the quality of patients’ decisions, future studies should examine whether it improves physician guideline adherence or medication adherence uptake among treated patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Osteoporosis Foundation (2014) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  2. Watts NB, Bilezikian JP, Camacho PM, Greenspan SL, Harris ST, Hodgson SF, Kleerekoper M, Luckey MM, McClung MR, Pollack RP, Petak SM, Osteoporosis Task Force AACE (2010) American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Pract 16(Suppl 3):1–37. doi:10.4158/EP.16.S3.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Neuner JM, Binkley N, Sparapani RA, Laud PW, Nattinger AB (2006) Bone density testing in older women and its association with patient age. J Am Geriatr Soc 54(3):485–489. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00622.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andrade SE, Majumdar SR, Chan KA, Buist DS, Go AS, Goodman M, Smith DH, Platt R, Gurwitz JH (2003) Low frequency of treatment of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women following a fracture. Arch Intern Med 163(17):2052–2057. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.17.2052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lo J, Pressman A, Omar M, Ettinger B (2006) Persistence with weekly alendronate therapy among postmenopausal women. Osteoporosis Int 17(6):922–928. doi:10.1007/s00198-006-0085-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kothawala P, Badamgarav E, Ryu S, Miller RM, Halbert RJ (2007) Systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world adherence to drug therapy for osteoporosis. Mayo Clin Proc 82(12):1493–1501. doi:10.1016/s0025-6196(11)61093-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Solomon DH, Johnston SS, Boytsov NN, McMorrow D, Lane JM, Krohn KD (2014) Osteoporosis medication use after hip fracture in U.S. patients between 2002 and 2011. J Bone Miner Res 29(9):1929–1937. doi:10.1002/jbmr.2202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Balasubramanian A, Tosi LL, Lane JM, Dirschl DR, Ho P-R, O’Malley CD (2014) Declining rates of osteoporosis management following fragility fractures in the U.S., 2000 through 2009. J Bone Joint Surg 96(7):e52. doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.01781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Saag KG, Gehlbach SH, Curtis JR, Youket TE, Worley K, Lange JL (2006) Trends in prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. J Rheum 33(8):1651–1657

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kamel H, Hussain M, Tariq S, Perry HI, Morley J (2000) Failure to diagnose and treat osteoporosis in elderly patients hospitalized with hip fracture. Am J Med 109:326–328. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00457-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Neuner JM, Zhang X, Sparapani R, Laud PW, Nattinger AB (2007) Racial and socioeconomic disparities in bone density testing before and after hip fracture. J Gen Intern Med 22:123–145. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0217-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Neuner JM, Zimmer JK, Hamel MB (2003) Diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with vertebral compression fractures. J Am Geriatr Soc 51(4):483–491. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51156.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R (2014) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4

  14. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2012) Healthy bones: a decision aid for women after menopause. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/decisionaids/osteoporosis/. Accessed: 2013

  15. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (2011) Osteoporosis: Should I have a dual x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) test? http://204.187.39.28/AZsumm.php?ID=1128. Accessed February 2013

  16. Neuner J, Fedders M, Caravella M, Bradford L, Schapira M (2015) Meaningful use and the patient portal: patient enrollment, use, and satisfaction with patient portals at a later-adopting center. Am J Med Qual 30(2):105–113. doi:10.1177/1062860614523488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Charts to download (2011) World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases. http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/charts.aspx. Accessed 2013

  18. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, Thomson R, Barratt A, Barry M, Bernstein S, Butow P, Clarke A, Entwistle V, Feldman-Stewart D, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Moumjid N, Mulley A, Ruland C, Sepucha K, Sykes A, Whelan T (2006) Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. Brit Med J 333(7565):417. doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Graham I, O’Connor A (1996) Preparation for decision making scale. http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/Tools/PrepDM.pdf. Accessed February 2013

  20. O’Connor A (1993) User manual- decisional conflict scale. http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Decisional_Conflict.pdf. Accessed February 2013

  21. Fowler FJ Jr, Gallagher PM, Drake KM, Sepucha KR (2013) Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making. Joint Comm J Quality Patient Saf 39(3):136–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Couper MP, Singer E, Levin CA, Fowler FJ, Ziniel S, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A (2010) The DECISIONS study: a nationwide survey of United States adults regarding 9 common medical decisions. Med Decis Mak 30(5 suppl):20S–34S. doi:10.1177/0272989x09353792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Connor AM (1995) Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak 15(1):25–30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Neuner JM, Schapira MM (2014) Patient perceptions of osteoporosis treatment thresholds. J Rheumatol 41(3):516–522. doi:10.3899/jrheum.130548

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, Branda ME, Van Houten HK, Swiglo BA, Kesman RL, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, Jaeger TM, Johnson RE, Bartel GA, Melton Iii LJ, Wermers RA (2011) Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med 124(6):549–556. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A special thanks to Glenn Bushee for his invaluable assistance in the development of the decision aid and to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and staff at John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science for making their decision aid publically available.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA

    A. J. Smallwood & J. M. Neuner

  2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    M. M. Schapira

  3. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    M. M. Schapira

  4. Clinical Informatics, Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA

    M. Fedders

  5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, CLCC–5th Floor, 9200 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA

    J. M. Neuner

Authors
  1. A. J. Smallwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. M. Schapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Fedders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. M. Neuner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. J. Smallwood.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Funding

This study was funded by the Clinical and Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin (project number 5,520,204).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 162 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 14.7 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 18 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 19 kb)

ESM 5

(DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smallwood, A.J., Schapira, M.M., Fedders, M. et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with tailored fracture risk tool delivered via a patient portal. Osteoporos Int 28, 567–576 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3767-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3767-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation