Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Direct-to-participant feedback and awareness of bone mineral density testing results in a population-based sample of mid-aged Canadians

Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

This population-based study of mid-aged Canadians assessed awareness of diagnosis by bone mineral density (BMD) following dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing and compared the effects of feedback only to the physician with direct-to-participant feedback. Poor recall of osteoporosis results was observed irrespective of the feedback destination, but direct-to-participant feedback improved recall of borderline or normal results.

Introduction

BMD testing provides information about fracture risk. This study assessed whether awareness of results, in a random population sample of mid-aged Canadians, differed if results were provided to physicians only or directly to participants.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of 2,678 women and men aged 40–60 years from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Participants completed hip and spine DXA and interviewer-administered questionnaires regarding demographics and osteoporosis risk factors. Lateral spine X-rays were conducted on those ≥50 years of age. All test results were reported to the participant, the family physician or both. Associations between BMD results, feedback destination and correct self-report results, 3 years later, were assessed using logistic regression while adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

Only 25% of men and 33% of women correctly reported their osteoporosis diagnoses. Direct-to-participant vs. physician-only reports did not improve recall of osteoporosis diagnosis but improved recall of borderline or normal BMD. Older (vs. younger) men and men with prevalent vertebral fractures demonstrated better recall of their osteoporosis diagnosis.

Conclusions

Recall of low BMD results was poor, despite direct-to-participant feedback and even in the presence of other osteoporosis risk factors. Direct-to-participant feedback may improve awareness of borderline or normal BMD results.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Brown JP, Josse RG (2002) 2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. CMAJ 167(10 Suppl):S1–S34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame H et al (2005) Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J 56(3):178–188

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization (2007) World Health Organisation Scientific Group on the Assessment of Osteoporosis at the Primary Health Care Level Summary Meeting Report, Brussels, Belgium 5–7 May 2004

  4. Rubin SM, Cummings SR (1992) Results of bone densitometry affect women’s decisions about taking measures to prevent fractures. Ann Intern Med 116(12 Pt 1):990–995

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jamal SA, Ridout R, Chase C, Fielding L, Rubin LA, Hawker GA (1999) Bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis education improve lifestyle behaviors in premenopausal women: a prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 14(12):2143–2149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Winzenberg T, Oldenburg B, Frendin S, De Wit L, Riley M, Jones G (2006) The effect on behavior and bone mineral density of individualized bone mineral density feedback and educational interventions in premenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00273260]. BMC Public Health 6:12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McLeod KM, McCann SE, Horvath PJ, Wactawski-Wende J (2007) Predictors of change in calcium intake in postmenopausal women after osteoporosis screening. J Nutr 137(8):1968–1973

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Patel A, Coates PS, Nelson JB, Trump DL, Resnick NM, Greenspan SL (2003) Does bone mineral density and knowledge influence health-related behaviors of elderly men at risk for osteoporosis? J Clin Densitom 6(4):323–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL (2003) Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health 93(4):635–641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pimlott N (2008) Who has time for family medicine? Can Fam Physician 54(1):14–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lammes FB (1995) Doctor–patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 40(7):903–918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell MK, Torgerson DJ, Thomas RE, McClure JD, Reid DM (1998) Direct disclosure of bone density results to patients: effect on knowledge of osteoporosis risk and anxiety level. Osteoporos Int 8(6):584–590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Joseph L et al (1999) Research notes: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): background, rationale, methods. Can J Aging 18(3):376–387

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tenenhouse A, Kreiger N, Hanley D (2000) Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Drug Dev Res 49:201–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9(8):1137–1141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitt NS, Mitchell SL, Cranney A, Gulenchyn K, Huang M, Tugwell P (2001) Influence of bone densitometry results on the treatment of osteoporosis. CMAJ 164(6):777–781

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pickney CS, Arnason JA (2005) Correlation between patient recall of bone densitometry results and subsequent treatment adherence. Osteoporos Int 16(9):1156–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tosteson AN, Grove MR, Hammond CS et al (2003) Early discontinuation of treatment for osteoporosis. Am J Med 115(3):209–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cadarette SM, Beaton DE, Gignac MA, Jaglal SB, Dickson L, Hawker GA (2007) Minimal error in self-report of having had DXA, but self-report of its results was poor. J Clin Epidemiol 60(12):1306–1311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weinstein ND (1982) Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. J Behav Med 5(4):441–460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weinstein ND (1989) Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science 246(4935):1232–1233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rimes KA, Salkovskis PM, Shipman AJ (1999) Psychological and behavioural effects of bone density screening for osteoporosis. Psychol Health 14:585–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Timko C, Janoff-Bulman R (1985) Attributions, vulnerability, and psychological adjustment: the case of breast cancer. Health Psychol 4(6):521–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor SE, Kemeny ME, Aspinwall LG, Schneider SG, Rodriguez R, Herbert M (1992) Optimism, coping, psychological distress, and high-risk sexual behavior among men at risk for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). J Pers Soc Psychol 63(3):460–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sedlak CA, Doheny MO, Estok PJ (2000) Osteoporosis in older men: knowledge and health beliefs. Orthop Nurs 19(3):38–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jaglal SB, Weller I, Mamdani M et al (2005) Population trends in BMD testing, treatment, and hip and wrist fracture rates: are the hip fracture projections wrong? J Bone Miner Res 20(6):898–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Naessen T, Parker R, Persson I, Zack M, Adami HO (1989) Time trends in incidence rates of first hip fracture in the Uppsala Health Care Region, Sweden, 1965–1983. Am J Epidemiol 130(2):289–299

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Melton LJ III, Atkinson EJ, Madhok R (1996) Downturn in hip fracture incidence. Public Health Rep 111(2):146–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lofman O, Berglund K, Larsson L, Toss G (2002) Changes in hip fracture epidemiology: redistribution between ages, genders and fracture types. Osteoporos Int 13(1):18–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A et al (2004) A meta-analysis of prior corticosteroid use and fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 19(6):893–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C et al (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35(2):375–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A et al (2005) Smoking and fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 16(2):155–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. FRAX WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (2008) www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/reference.htm. Accessed 28 July 2008

  34. Stock JL, Waud CE, Coderre JA et al (1998) Clinical reporting to primary care physicians leads to increased use and understanding of bone densitometry and affects the management of osteoporosis. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 128(12 Pt 1):996–999

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wallace LM, Wright S, Parsons A, Wright C, Barlow J (2002) The impact of screening for osteoporosis on bone protecting exercise and dietary calcium intake. Psychol Health Med 7(4):477–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Neill TW, Marsden D, Matthis C, Raspe H, Silman AJ (1995) Survey response rates: national and regional differences in a European multicentre study of vertebral osteoporosis. J Epidemiol Community Health 49(1):87–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jones G, White C, Nguyen T, Sambrook PN, Kelly PJ, Eisman JA (1996) Prevalent vertebral deformities: relationship to bone mineral density and spinal osteophytosis in elderly men and women. Osteoporos Int 6(3):233–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Statistics Canada (2004) Statistics Canada 1996 census tables. www.statcan.gc.ca/c1996-r1996/nation-pays2-eng.htm. Accessed 18 December 2008

  39. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL et al (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8(5):468–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tenenhouse A, Joseph L, Kreiger N et al (2000) Estimation of the prevalence of low bone density in Canadian women and men using a population-specific DXA reference standard: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 11(10):897–904

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Jonsson B, De Laet C, Dawson A (2000) Risk of hip fracture according to the World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia and osteoporosis. Bone 27(5):585–590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ahmed AI, Blake GM, Rymer JM, Fogelman I (1997) Screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis: do the accepted normal ranges lead to overdiagnosis? Osteoporos Int 7(5):432–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hanson J, Felsenberg D, Fuerst T et al (1997) Letter. Bone 21(4):369–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Papaioannou A, Giangregorio L, Kvern B, Boulos P, Ioannidis G, Adachi JD (2004) The osteoporosis care gap in Canada. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 5:11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hamel ME, Sebaldt RJ, Siminoski K et al (2005) Influence of fracture history and bone mineral density testing on the treatment of osteoporosis in two non-academic community centers. Osteoporos Int 16(2):208–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Cranney A, Zytaruk N, Adachi JD (2006) Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon. Semin Arthritis Rheum 35(5):293–305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jaglal SB, Carroll J, Hawker G et al (2003) How are family physicians managing osteoporosis? Qualitative study of their experiences and educational needs. Can Fam Physician 49:462–468

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Kingwell was supported by a Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) and Health Canada Joint Doctoral Research Award and a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR) Doctoral Trainee Award. Dr. Ratner is supported through an MSFHR Senior Scholar Award. We thank the CaMOS steering committee for sharing their data and facilities and the CaMOS participants for willingly donating their time and personal information. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Kingwell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kingwell, E., Prior, J.C., Ratner, P.A. et al. Direct-to-participant feedback and awareness of bone mineral density testing results in a population-based sample of mid-aged Canadians. Osteoporos Int 21, 307–319 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0966-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0966-2

Keywords

Navigation