Osteoporosis International

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 2135–2140 | Cite as

Differing perceptions of intervention thresholds for fracture risk: a survey of patients and doctors

  • F. Douglas
  • K. J. Petrie
  • T. Cundy
  • A. Horne
  • G. Gamble
  • A. Grey
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

This survey suggests that patients are prepared to accept higher absolute fracture risk than doctors, before considering pharmacological therapy to be justified. Patients require that drug treatments confer substantial fracture risk reductions in order to consider long-term therapy.

Introduction

Absolute fracture risk estimates are now incorporated into osteoporosis treatment guidelines. At present, little is known about how patients regard fracture risk and its management. We set out to describe and compare the views of patients and doctors on the level of fracture risk at which drug treatment is justified.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 114 patients referred for bone density measurement and 161 doctors whose practice includes management of osteoporosis. Participants were asked about fracture risk thresholds for pharmacological intervention.

Results

The absolute risk of both major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture at which drug treatment was considered by patients to be justifiable was higher than that reported by doctors [major osteoporotic fracture, median (interquartile range): patients, 50% (25 to 60); doctors, 10% (10 to 20); P < 0.0001; hip fracture: patients, 50% (25 to 60); doctors, 10% (5 to 20); P < 0.0001]. Patients required that a drug provide a median 50% reduction in relative risk of fracture in order to consider taking long-term therapy, irrespective of the treatment mode or dosing schedule. Among doctors, there was an inverse relationship between the number of osteoporosis consultations conducted each month and threshold of risk for recommending drug treatment (r = −0.22 and r = −0.29 for major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, respectively, P < 0.01 for both)

Conclusions

Patients are prepared to accept higher absolute fracture risk than doctors, before considering pharmacological therapy to be justified. Patients require that drug treatments confer substantial fracture risk reductions in order to consider long-term therapy.

Keywords

Doctors Fracture Medications Patients Risk 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Nicholas Bennett for assistance with data entry.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Sambrook P, Cooper C (2006) Osteoporosis. Lancet 367:2010–2018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC (2011) Osteoporosis: now and the future. Lancet 377:1276–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nguyen ND, Frost SA, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2008) Development of prognostic nomograms for individualizing 5-year and 10-year fracture risks. Osteoporos Int 19:1431–1444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, Borgstrom F, Strom O, McCloskey E (2009) FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44:734–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation (2009) Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. http://www.nof.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/NOF_ClinicianGuide2009_v7.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2011
  6. 6.
    Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Strom O, Borgstrom F, Oden A (2008) Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX-assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:1395–1408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Francis R, Kanis JA, Marsh D, McCloskey EV, Reid DM, Selby P, Wilkins M (2009) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK. Maturitas 62:105–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horne R, Weinman J (1999) Patients' beliefs about prescribed medicines and their role in adherence to treatment in chronic physical illness. J Psychosom Res 47:555–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yood RA, Mazor KM, Andrade SE, Emani S, Chan W, Kahler KH (2008) Patient decision to initiate therapy for osteoporosis; the influence of knowledge and beliefs. J Gen Intern Med 23:1815–1821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Compston JE, Seeman E (2006) Compliance with osteoporosis therapy is the weakest link. Lancet 368:973–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schousboe JT, Dowd BE, Davison ML, Kane RL (2010) Association of medication attitudes with non-persistence and non-compliance with medication to prevent fractures. Osteoporos Int 21:1899–1909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Satterfield T, Johnson SM, Slovic P, Neil N, Schein JR (2000) Perceived risks and reported behaviors associated with osteoporosis and its treatment. Women Health 31:21–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    FRAX (2011) WHO fracture risk assessment tool. http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX. Accessed 7 Sept 2011
  14. 14.
    Steel N (2000) Thresholds for taking antihypertensive drugs in different professional and lay groups: questionnaire survey. BMJ 320:1446–1447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trewby PN, Reddy AV, Trewby CS, Ashton VJ, Brennan G, Inglis J (2002) Are preventive drugs preventive enough? A study of patients' expectation of benefit from preventive drugs. Clin Med 2:527–533PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bolland MJ, Grey A (2010) Disparate outcomes from applying U.K. and U.S. osteoporosis treatment guidelines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95:1856–1860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moynihan R (2011) Overdiagnosis and the dangers of early detection. BMJ 342:d1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jarvinen TLN, Sievanen H, Kannus P, Jokihaara J, Khan KM (2011) The true cost of pharmacological disease prevention. BMJ 342:d2175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seeman E, Compston J, Adachi J, Brandi ML, Cooper C, Dawson-Hughes B, Jonsson B, Pols H, Cramer JA (2007) Non-compliance: the Achilles' heel of anti-fracture efficacy. Osteoporos Int 18:711–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gigerenzer G, Edwards A (2003) Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 327:741–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Douglas
    • 1
  • K. J. Petrie
    • 2
  • T. Cundy
    • 1
  • A. Horne
    • 1
  • G. Gamble
    • 1
  • A. Grey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Psychological MedicineUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations