General medical practitioners' knowledge and beliefs about osteoporosis and its investigation and management
- 514 Downloads
This qualitative study explored beliefs and attitudes regarding osteoporosis and its management. General medical practitioners (GPs) were ambivalent about osteoporosis due to concern about financial barriers for patients and their own beliefs about the salience of osteoporosis. GPs considered investigation and treatment in the context of patients' whole lives.
We aimed to investigate barriers, enablers, and other factors influencing the investigation and management of osteoporosis using a qualitative approach. This paper analyses data from discussions with general medical practitioners (GPs) about their beliefs and attitudes regarding osteoporosis and its management.
Fourteen GPs and two practice nurses aged 27–89 years participated in four focus groups, from June 2010 to March 2011. Each group comprised 3–5 participants, and discussions were semi-structured, according to the protocol developed for the main study. Discussion points ranged from the circumstances under which GPs would initiate investigation for osteoporosis and their subsequent actions to their views about treatment efficacy and patient adherence to prescribed treatment. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded for analysis using analytic comparison to identify the major themes.
The GPs were not particularly concerned about osteoporosis in their patients or the general population, ranking diabetes, osteoarthritis, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension higher than concern about osteoporosis. They expressed confidence in the efficacy of anti-fracture medications but were concerned about the potential financial burden on patients with limited incomes. The GPs were unsure about guidelines for investigation and management of osteoporosis in men and the appropriate duration of treatment, particularly for the bisphosphonates in all patients.
The GPs' ambivalence about osteoporosis appeared to stem from structural factors such as financial barriers for patients and their own beliefs about the salience of osteoporosis. GPs considered the impact of investigating and prescribing treatment in the context of patients' whole lives.
KeywordsOsteoporosis Qualitative methods General medical practitioners
Conflicts of interest
- 2.Alonso-Coello P, Lopez A, Pencille LJ (2009) Is too much intervention recommended in the ACP osteoporosis treatment guidelines? Letter to the editor. Ann Intern Med 150:285–286Google Scholar
- 18.Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007) Census of Population and Housing 2006. Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kitzinger J (2006) Focus groups. In: Pope C, Mays N (eds) Qualitative research in health care, 3rd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
- 21.World Medical Association (2008) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. In, 59th General Assembly, Seoul, Korea edn.Google Scholar
- 22.Neuman WL (2003) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative methods. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
- 23.Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
- 25.Silverman D, Marvasti A (2008) Doing qualitative research: a comprehensive guide. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
- 27.Sturtridge W, Lentle B, Hanley DA (1996) Prevention and management of osteoporosis: Consensus statements from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. 2. The use of bone density measurement in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. Can Med Assoc J 155:924–929Google Scholar
- 30.The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners R (2010) Clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men. In. RACGP, South Melbourne, Vic., AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- 36.Hiligsmann M, Gathon HJ, Bruyère O, Ethgen O, Rabenda V, Reginster JY (2010) Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by treatment: the impact of medication adherence. Value in Health: The Journal of The International Society For Pharmacoeconomics And Outcomes Research 13:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Petursson H, Getz L, Sigurdsson JA, Heltlevik I (2009) Current European guidelines for management of arterial hypertension: Are they adequate for use in primary care? Modelling study based on the Norwegian HUNT 2 population. BMC Family Practice 10:Google Scholar