Osteoporosis prevention: where are the barriers to improvement in a French general population? A qualitative study
- 181 Downloads
We conducted a qualitative study with French men and women in order to provide insight into individuals’ experiences, behaviors, and perceptions about osteoporosis (OP) and OP care. The data showed that both sexes, but especially men, were unfamiliar with OP, did not always feel concerned, and mistrusted pharmacological treatments.
To engage actively in osteoporosis (OP) prevention, people need to have basic knowledge about the disease. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore knowledge and representations of OP care and prevention among both men and women.
Focus groups were conducted in the Rhône-Alpes Region, France, with women aged 50–85 years and men aged 60–85 years, with or without a history of fragility fracture and/or an OP diagnosis (respectively referred to as “aware” or “unaware”). A total of 45 women (23 “aware” and 22 “unaware” in 5 and 4 focus groups, respectively) and 53 men (19 “aware” and 34 “unaware” in 3 and 4 focus groups, respectively) were included. A thematic analysis of transcripts was performed to explore knowledge and representations about OP, risk factors, prevention, and treatment.
The data showed that both sexes, but especially men, had limited knowledge of OP and considered it as a natural aging process not related to fragility fractures. They generally did not feel concerned by OP and no important difference was observed between “aware” and “unaware” patients. Women expressed their fear of the disease, associated with aging and the end of life, while men considered it to be a women’s disease only. Both sexes were aware of OP risk factors, but were suspicious towards treatments because of the associated side effects.
Understanding people’s representation of OP might help to provide patients with relevant information in order to optimize their preventive behavior and decrease the burden of the disease.
KeywordsFocus groups France Men osteoporosis Osteoporosis management Qualitative research Women osteoporosis
The authors thank APICIL for having given access to their members and the women and men who took part in the study and accepted to share their ideas and experiences.
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was approved by the local ethics committee (Institutional Review Board: IORG0007394. Ref: IRBN092014/CHUSTE).
Conflict of interest
- 2.Strom O, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA, Compston J, Cooper C, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B (2011) Osteoporosis: burden, health care provision and opportunities in the EU: a report prepared in collaboration with the international Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 6:59–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY, Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for C, Economic Aspects of O, Osteoarthritis, the Committee of Scientific Advisors of the International Osteoporosis F (2013) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 24:23–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Cheng N, Green ME (2008) Osteoporosis screening for men: are family physicians following the guidelines? Can Fam Physician 54:1140–1141 1141 e1141–1145Google Scholar
- 15.Sale JE, Beaton DE, Sujic R, Bogoch ER (2010) ‘If it was osteoporosis, I would have really hurt myself.’ Ambiguity about osteoporosis and osteoporosis care despite a screening programme to educate fragility fracture patients. J Eval Clin Pract 16:590–596Google Scholar
- 22.Lau E, Papaioannou A, Dolovich L, Adachi J, Sawka AM, Burns S, Nair K, Pathak A (2008) Patients’ adherence to osteoporosis therapy: exploring the perceptions of postmenopausal women. Can Fam Physician 54:394–402Google Scholar
- 31.Leventhal H, Benyamini Y, Brownlee S, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA, Patrick-Miller L, Robitaille C (1997) Illness representations: theoretical foundations. In: Petrie KJ, Weinman JA (eds) Perceptions of health and illness. Harwood Academic, Amsterdam, pp 19–45Google Scholar
- 36.Yu J, Brenneman SK, Sazonov V, Modi A (2015) Reasons for not initiating osteoporosis therapy among a managed care population. Patient Prefer Adherence 9:821–830Google Scholar