Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Women’s perspectives and experiences on screening for osteoporosis (Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, ROSE)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Osteoporosis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

This study aimed to investigate women’s perspectives and experiences with screening for osteoporosis. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted. Three main themes emerged: knowledge about osteoporosis, psychological aspects of screening, and moral duty. Generally, screening was accepted due to life experiences, self-perceived risk, and the preventive nature of screening.

Purpose

The risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation (ROSE) study is a randomized prospective population-based trial investigating the efficacy of a screening program to prevent fractures in women aged 65–80 years. It is recommended by the World Health Organization that a set of criteria are met before a screening program is implemented. This sub-study aims to investigate women’s perspectives and experiences with the ROSE screening program in relation to the patient-related criteria recommended by the World Health Organization.

Methods

A qualitative study was carried out involving 31 women by way of 8 focus group interviews and 11 individual interviews. Principles from critical psychology guided the analysis.

Results

Women’s perspectives and experiences with the screening program were described by three main themes: knowledge about osteoporosis, psychological aspects of screening, and moral duty. The women viewed the program in the context of their everyday life and life trajectories. Age, lifestyle, and knowledge about osteoporosis were important to how women ascribed meaning to the program, how they viewed the possibilities and limitations, and how they rationalized their actions and choices. The women displayed limited knowledge about osteoporosis and its risk factors. However, acceptance was based on prior experience, perceived risk, and evaluation of preventive measures. To be reassured or concerned by screening was described as important issues, as well as the responsibility for health-seeking behaviour.

Conclusion

In general, the women accepted the screening program. No major ethical reservations or adverse psychological consequences were detected. Only a minority of women declined screening participation due to a low perceived risk of osteoporosis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC (2010) The benefits and harms of screening for cancer with a focus on breast screening. Pol Arch Med Wewn 120:89–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilson JM, Jungner YG (1968) Principles and practice of mass screening for disease. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 65:281–393

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Dery V (2008) Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 86:317–319

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hugod C, Alban A, Dehlholm G, Fog J, Hørder M, Lynge E, Olesen F, Olsen J, Møller-Pedersen K, Worm-Petersen J (1990) Screening hvorfor—hvornår—hvordan

  5. Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2005) Osteoporosis is markedly underdiagnosed: a nationwide study from Denmark. Osteoporos Int 16:134–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnell O, Kanis J (2005) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S3–S7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De LC, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, Kroger H, McCloskey EV, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35:375–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mossey JM, Mutran E, Knott K, Craik R (1989) Determinants of recovery 12 months after hip fracture: the importance of psychosocial factors. Am J Public Health 79:279–286

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Strom O, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA, Compston J, Cooper C, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B (2011) Osteoporosis: burden, health care provision and opportunities in the EU: a report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 6:59–155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Papaioannou A, Kennedy CC, Ioannidis G, Brown JP, Pathak A, Hanley DA, Josse RG, Sebaldt RJ, Olszynski WP, Tenenhouse A, Murray TM, Petrie A, Goldsmith CH, Adachi JD (2006) Determinants of health-related quality of life in women with vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:355–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Petrella RJ, Payne M, Myers A, Overend T, Chesworth B (2000) Physical function and fear of falling after hip fracture rehabilitation in the elderly. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 79:154–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2007) Increased mortality in patients with a hip fracture-effect of pre-morbid conditions and post-fracture complications. Osteoporos Int 18:1583–1593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Murad MH, Drake MT, Mullan RJ, Mauck KF, Stuart LM, Lane MA, Abu Elnour NO, Erwin PJ, Hazem A, Puhan MA, Li T, Montori VM (2012) Clinical review. Comparative effectiveness of drug treatments to prevent fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97:1871–1880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reventlow SD (2007) Perceived risk of osteoporosis: restricted physical activities? Qualitative interview study with women in their sixties. Scand J Prim Health Care 25:160–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Weston JM, Norris EV, Clark EM (2011) The invisible disease: making sense of an osteoporosis diagnosis in older age. Qual Health Res 21:1692–1704

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Reventlow S, Bang H (2006) Brittle bones: ageing or threat of disease exploring women’s cultural models of osteoporosis. Scand J Public Health 34:320–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Reventlow SD, Hvas L, Malterud K (2006) Making the invisible body visible. Bone scans, osteoporosis and women’s bodily experiences. Soc Sci Med 62:2720–2731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey EV (2009) Assessment of fracture risk. Eur J Radiol 71:392–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kvale S (2007) Doing interviews

  20. Maxwell J (2005) Qualitative research design. An interactive approach

  21. Morgan D (1997) Focus group as qualitative research. 2nd edn

  22. Barbour R (2007) Doing focus groups

  23. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW (2007) Focus groups theory and practice. 2nd edn

  24. Mørck LL, Huniche L (2006) Critical psychology in Danish context. Annual review of Critical Psychology:1–9

  25. Dreier O (2008) Psychotherapy in everyday life

  26. Jartoft V (1996) Kritisk psykologi en psykologi med fokus på subjektivitet og handling

  27. Janz NK, Becker MH (1984) The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Q 11:1–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sujic R, Gignac MA, Cockerill R, Beaton DE (2011) A review of patient-centred post-fracture interventions in the context of theories of health behaviour change. Osteoporos Int 22:2213–2224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH (1988) Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ Q 15(2):175–183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Clarke LH, Griffin M (2008) Failing bodies: body image and multiple chronic conditions in later life. Qual Health Res 18:1084–1095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Thabane L, Debeer J, Cranney A, Dolovich L, Adili A, Adachi JD (2008) Do patients perceive a link between a fragility fracture and osteoporosis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:38

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gerend MA, Erchull MJ, Aiken LS, Maner JK (2006) Reasons and risk: factors underlying women’s perceptions of susceptibility to osteoporosis. Maturitas 55:227–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA, Lagendyk LE, Petersen KM (2004) After the fall: women’s views of fractures in relation to bone health at midlife. Women Health 39:47–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Meadows LM, Mrkonjic L, Lagendyk L (2005) Women’s perceptions of future risk after low-energy fractures at midlife. Ann Fam Med 3:64–69

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rimes KA, Salkovskis PM (2002) Prediction of psychological reactions to bone density screening for osteoporosis using a cognitive-behavioral model of health anxiety. Behav Res Ther 40:359–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Malterud K (2005) Qualitative methods in medical research—conditions, possibilities and challenges. Ugeskr Laeger 167:2377–2380

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participating women, staffs at the outpatient clinics and the research groups that have contributed to ROSE, Teresa Holmberg for carrying out a focus group and Claire Gudex for the translations of quotations and editorial comments on the manuscript.

Funding

ROSE was funded by INTERREG 4A and The Region of Southern Denmark.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 10, 6.sal, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Mette Juel Rothmann & Anne Pernille Hermann

  2. Health Services Research Unit, Lillebaelt Hospital/IRS, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Mette Juel Rothmann, Jette Ammentorp & Anne Pernille Hermann

  3. Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Lotte Huniche

  4. Section Biomedical Imaging, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany

    Reinhard Barkmann & Claus C. Glüer

Authors
  1. Mette Juel Rothmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lotte Huniche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jette Ammentorp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reinhard Barkmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Claus C. Glüer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anne Pernille Hermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mette Juel Rothmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rothmann, M.J., Huniche, L., Ammentorp, J. et al. Women’s perspectives and experiences on screening for osteoporosis (Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, ROSE). Arch Osteoporos 9, 192 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-014-0192-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-014-0192-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation