Osteoporosis International

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 273–279 | Cite as

Is lower income associated with an increased likelihood of qualification for treatment for osteoporosis in Canadian women?

Original Article

Abstract

Summary

We examined whether low income was associated with an increased likelihood of treatment qualification for osteoporotic fracture probability determined by Canada FRAX in women aged ≥50 years. A significant negative linear association was observed between income and treatment qualification when FRAX included bone mineral density (BMD), which may have implications for clinical practice.

Introduction

Lower income has been associated with increased fracture risk. We examined whether lower income in women was associated with an increased likelihood of treatment qualification determined by Canada FRAX®.

Methods

We calculated 10-year FRAX probabilities in 51,327 Canadian women aged ≥50 years undergoing baseline BMD measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry 1996–2001. FRAX probabilities for hip fracture ≥3 % or major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) ≥20 % were used to define treatment qualification. Mean household income from Canada Census 2006 public use files was used to categorize the population into quintiles. Logistic regression analyses were used to model the association between income and treatment qualification.

Results

Percentages of women who qualified for treatment based upon high hip fracture probability increased linearly with declining income quintile (all p trend <0.001), but this was partially explained by older age among lower income quintiles (p trend <0.001). Compared to the highest income quintile, women in the lowest income quintile had a greater likelihood of treatment qualification based upon high hip fracture probability determined with BMD (age-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95 % confidence intervals (CI), 1.23–1.47) or high MOF fracture probability determined with BMD (age-adjusted OR, 1.31; 95 % CI, 1.18–1.46). Differences were nonsignificant when FRAX was determined without BMD, implying that BMD differences may be the primary explanatory factor.

Conclusions

FRAX determined with BMD identifies a larger proportion of lower income women as qualifying for treatment than higher income women.

Keywords

Disadvantage FRAX Income Osteoporosis Treatment qualification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Manitoba Health for the provision of data (HIPC File Number 2012/2013-15). The results and conclusions are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by Manitoba Health is intended or should be inferred. This article has been reviewed and approved by the members of the Manitoba Bone Density Program Committee. SL Brennan is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia Early Career Fellowship (1012472) and a 2012 Dyason Fellowship from The University of Melbourne. LM Lix is supported by a Manitoba Research Chair.

Conflicts of interest

Sharon L Brennan has no disclosures. William D Leslie has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Amgen, and Genzyme and received unrestricted research grants and speaker fees from Amgen. Lisa M Lix has received an unrestricted research grant from Amgen.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilkinson RG, Marmot MG (eds) (1998) Social determinants of health: the solid facts. WHO European Region, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The Spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyer HE, Henriksen C, Falch JA, Pedersen JI, Tverdal A (1995) Risk factors for hip fracture in a high incidence area: a case–control study from Oslo, Norway. Osteoporos Int 5:239–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bacon WE, Hadden WC (2000) Occurrence of hip fractures and socioeconomic position. J Aging Health 12:193–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farahmand BY, Persson PG, Michaelsson K, Baron JA, Parker MG, Ljunghall S (2000) Socioeconomic status, marital status and hip fracture risk: a population-based case–control study. Osteoporos Int 11:803–808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan SL, Henry MJ, Kotowicz MA, Nicholson GC, Zhang Y, Pasco JA (2011) Incident hip fracture and social disadvantage in an Australian population aged 50 years or greater. Bone 48:607–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones S, Johansen A, Brennan J, Butler J, Lyons RA (2004) The effect of socioeconomic deprivation on fracture incidence in the United Kingdom. Osteoporos Int 15:520–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zingmond DS, Soohoo NF, Silverman SL (2006) The role of socioeconomic status on hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 17:1562–1568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guilley E, Herrmann F, Rapin C-H, Hoffmeyer P, Rizzoli R, Chevalley T (2010) Socioeconomic and living conditions are determinants of hip fracture incidence and age occurrence among community-dwelling elderly. Osteoporos Int 18:2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Rapp K, Dragano N, Meyer G, Rosenbauer J (2009) Hip fractures and area level socioeconomic conditions: a population-based study. BMC Public Health 9:1,471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson R, Chase GA, Chrischilles EA, Wallace RB (2006) Hip fracture risk among community-dwelling elderly people in the United States: a prospective study of physical, cognitive and socioeconomic indicators. Am J Public Health 96:1210–1218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnell O, Borgstrom F, Jonsson B, Kanis J (2007) Latitude, socioeconomic prosperity, mobile phones and hip fracture risk. Osteoporos Int 18:333–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Syddall HE, Evandrou M, Dennison EM, Cooper C, Sayer AA (2012) Social inequalities in osteoporosis and fracture among community-dwelling older men and women: findings from the Hertfordshire cohort study. Arch Osteoporos 7:37–48PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Ward H, Tarasuk V, Mendelson R, McKeown-Eyssen G (2007) An exploration of socioeconomic variation in lifestyle factors and adiposity in the Ontario Food Survey through structural equation modeling. Int J Behav Nutr Physical Activity 4:5864–5868Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anand SS, Razak F, Davis AD, Jacobs R, Vuksan V, Teo K, Yusuf S (2006) Social disadvantage and cardiovascular disease: development of an index and analysis of age, sex, and ethnicity effects. Int J Epidemiol 35:1239–1245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leslie WD, Morin S, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, For the Manitoba Bone Density Program (2011) Fracture risk assessment without bone density measurement in routine clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 23:75–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brennan SL, Leslie WD, Lix LM (2012) Associations between adverse social position and bone mineral density in women aged 50 years or older: data from the Manitoba Bone Density Program. Osteoporos Int(February)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, Atkinson S, Brown JP, Feldman S et al (2010) 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 182:1864–1873PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawson-Hughes B, Tosteson AN, Melton LJ (2008) Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA. Osteoporos Int 19:449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dawson-Hughes B, Looker AC, Tosteson AN, Johansson H, Kanis JA, Melton LJ III (2009) The potential impact of new National Osteoporosis Foundation guidance on treatment patterns. Osteoporos Int.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roos NP, Shapiro E (1999) Revisiting the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and its population-based health information system. Med Care 37:JS10–JS14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roos NP (1999) Establishing a population data-based policy unit. Med Care 37Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leslie WD, Metge C (2003) Establishing a regional bone density program: lessons from the Manitoba experience. J Clin Densitom 6:275–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Manitoba Bone Density Program (2010) Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res 25:2350–2358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Manitoba Bone Density Program (2012) High fracture probability with FRAX usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 23:391–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Demeter S, Leslie WD, Lix L, MacWilliam L, Finlayson GS, Reed M (2007) The effect of socioeconomic status on bone density testing in a public health-care system. Osteoporos Int 18:153–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Demeter S, Reed M, Lix L, MacWilliam L, Leslie WD (2005) Socioeconomic status and the utilization of diagnostic imaging in an urban setting. CMAJ 173:1173–1177PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neuner JM, Zhang X, Sparapani R, Laud PW, Nattinger AB (2007) Racial and socioeconomic disparities in bone density testing before and after hip fracture. J Gen Int Med 22:1239–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ellis J, Mullan J, Worsley A, Pai N (2012) The role of health literacy and social networks in arthritis patients' health information-seeking behavior: A qualitative study. Int J Family Med doi: 10.1155/2012/397039:6 pages.
  31. 31.
    Buchbinder R, Batterham R, Ciciriello S, Newman S, Horgan B, Ueffing E, Rader T, Tugwell PS, Osborne RH (2011) Health literacy: What is it and why is it important to measure? J Rheumatol 38:1791–1797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Williams J, Clemens S, Oleinikova K, Tarvin K (2003) The skills for life survey: a national needs and impact survey of literacy, numeracy and ICT skills. In Skills Department for Education and Skills (ed). DES, London.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    White S (2008) Assessing the nation's health literacy. Key concepts and findings of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). In. AMA, US.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    (2007) Health literacy in Canada: Initial results from the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey 2007. In. Canadian Council on Learning, Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cook PF, Emiliozzi S, McCabe MM (2007) Telephone counseling to improve osteoporosis treatment adherence: an effectiveness study in community practice settings. Am J Med Qual 22:445–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Warriner AH, Curtis JR (2009) Adherence to osteoporosis treatments: room for improvement. Curr Opin Rheumatol 21:356–362PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mustard CA, Derksen S, Berthelot JM, Wolfson M (1999) Assessing ecologic proxies for household income: a comparison of household and neighbourhood level income measures in the study of population health status. Health Place 5:157–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NorthWest Academic CentreThe University of Melbourne, Sunshine HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal SciencesMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of MedicineDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  4. 4.Department of MedicineUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  5. 5.Department of Community Health SciencesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations