Harnessing stakeholder perspectives to improve the care of osteoporosis after a fracture
- 131 Downloads
This study used in-depth interviews and focus groups to evaluate osteoporosis care after a fracture. Patients (eligible women aged 67 who sustained a clinical fracture(s)), clinicians, and staff stated that an outreach program facilitated osteoporosis care management, but more-tailored education and support and increased participation of orthopedic specialists appear necessary.
Osteoporosis treatment reduces fracture risk, but screening and treatment are underutilized, even after a fracture has occurred. This study evaluated key stakeholder perspectives about the care of osteoporosis after a fracture.
Participants were from a nonprofit health maintenance organization in the United States: eligible women members aged 67 or older who sustained a clinical fracture(s) (n = 10), quality and other health care managers (n = 20), primary care providers (n = 9), and orthopedic clinicians and staff (n = 28); total n = 67. In-depth interviews and focus groups elicited participant perspectives on an outreach program to patients and clinicians and other facilitators and barriers to care. Interviews and focus group sessions were transcribed and content-analyzed.
Patients, clinicians, and staff stated that outreach facilitated osteoporosis care management, but important patient barriers remained. Patient knowledge gaps and fatalism were common. Providers stated that management needed to begin earlier, and longer-term patient support was necessary to address adherence. Orthopedic clinicians and staff expressed lack of confidence in their osteoporosis management but willingness to encourage treatment.
Although an outreach program assisted with the management of osteoporosis after a fracture, more-tailored education and support and increased participation of orthopedic specialists appear necessary to maximize osteoporosis management.
KeywordsBarriers Bone mineral density Facilitators Medication Osteoporosis
- 1.National Osteoporosis Foundation (2000) Physicians guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosisGoogle Scholar
- 6.Majumdar SR, Rowe BH, Folk D, Johnson JA, Holroyd BH, Morrish DW, Maksymowych WP, Steiner IP, Harley CH, Wirzba BJ, Hanley DA, Blitz S, Russell AS (2004) A controlled trial to increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis in older patients with a wrist fracture. Ann Intern Med 141:366–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Freeborn DK, Pope C (1994) Promise and performance in managed care: the prepaid group practice modelGoogle Scholar
- 13.Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE (2008) A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, March, In PressGoogle Scholar
- 15.Erlandson DA, Harris EL, Skipper BL, Allen SD (1993) Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methodsGoogle Scholar
- 16.Marshall C, Rossman GB (1995) Designing Qualitative Research. 2nd EdnGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic InquiryGoogle Scholar
- 18.Lofland l, Lofland J (1995) Analyzing Social Settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 3rd EdnGoogle Scholar
- 19.Wolcott HF (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and InterpretationGoogle Scholar
- 20.Strauss AL, Corbin JM (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniquesGoogle Scholar
- 21.Ettinger B, Pressman AR, Schein J, Chan J, Silver P, Connolly N (1998) Alendronate use among 812 women: Prevalence of gastrointestinal complaints, non-compliance with patient instructions, and discontinuation. J Manag Care Pharm 4:488–492Google Scholar
- 22.Jaglal SB, McIsaac WJ, Hawker G, Carroll J, Jaakkimainen L, Cadarette SM, Cameron C, Davis D (2003) Information needs in the management of osteoporosis in family practice: an illustration of the failure of the current guideline implementation process. Osteoporos Int 14:672–676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar