Osteoporosis International

, 22:445 | Cite as

Improving osteoporosis care through multimodal interventions: insights from the University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics

Opinion Paper
  • 114 Downloads

Abstract

Despite the many advances in scientific research over the last several decades, cutting edge technologies and therapeutics often take many years to find their way into widespread use. The dissemination and uptake of best practices into clinical care is sometimes a neglected component of research that is essential to improve the population’s health. Type 2 translational research, sometimes called “Proof in Practice Research,” seeks to maximize the yield of what has been learned from the bench and from carefully controlled clinical trials and to extend those benefits to a larger population. One aspect of type 2 translational research, sometimes called evidence implementation or implementation science, applies what has been learned about clinical medicine to achieve best practices across providers and health systems. This article describes evidence implementation as applied to osteoporosis care, drawing from several published or ongoing studies to illustrate challenges and potential solutions in improving the quality of osteoporosis care.

Keywords

Bone mineral density testing Evidence implementation Group randomized trial Osteoporosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Dr. Curtis receives salary support from the NIH (AR053351) and AHRQ (R01 R01HS018517, R13HS020144-01).

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Sung NS et al (2003) Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 289(10):1278–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eccles MP et al (2009) An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci 4:18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curtis JR et al (2009) Do physicians within the same practice setting manage osteoporosis patients similarly? Implications for implementation research. Osteoporos Int 20(11):1921–1927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murray D (1998) Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiefe CI et al (2001) Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial. Jama 285(22):2871–2879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fry RB et al (2007) Racial/ethnic disparities in patient-reported nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) risk awareness, patient-doctor NSAID risk communication, and NSAID risk behavior. Arthritis Rheum 57(8):1539–1545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colon-Emeric CS et al (2007) Randomized trial to improve fracture prevention in nursing home residents. Am J Med 120(10):886–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warriner A et al (2010) DXA screening and use of osteoporosis medications in two large regional healthcare systems. Arthritis Rheum 62(Suppl 10):S1543Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warriner A et al (2010) Self-scheduling of DXA scans to improve osteoporosis screening in women. Arthritis Rheum 62(Suppl 10):S1006Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warriner A et al. (2011) Allowing patient self-referral of DXA significantly improves osteoporosis screening. ASBMR Annual Meeting 2011, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green MC, Brock TC (2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers Soc Psychol 79(5):701–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kreuter MW et al (2008) What makes cancer survivor stories work? An empirical study among African American women. J Cancer Surviv 2(1):33–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Houston TK et al (2011) Culturally appropriate storytelling to improve blood pressure: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 154(2):77–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Outman RC et al (2010) Screening and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in a large U.S. national pharmacy database. Arthritis Rheum 62:S648Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Curtis JR et al (2006) Osteoporosis in the home health care setting: a window of opportunity? Arthritis Rheum 55(6):971–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    http://shef.ac.uk/FRAX. Accessed May 31st, 2008
  17. 17.
    Curtis JR et al (2007) Challenges in improving the quality of osteoporosis care for long-term glucocorticoid users: a prospective randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 167(6):591–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slater MD, Rouner D (2002) Entertainment—education and elaboration likelihood: understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Comm Theory 12(2):173–191Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Clinical Immunology and RheumatologyUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics on Musculoskeletal DisordersBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations