Advertisement

Archives of Osteoporosis

, Volume 7, Issue 1–2, pp 115–124 | Cite as

How do osteoporosis patients perceive their illness and treatment? Implications for clinical practice

  • Sarah Jane BesserEmail author
  • Janet E. Anderson
  • John Weinman
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Non-adherence inhibits successful treatment of osteoporosis. This study used a theoretical framework to explore osteoporosis patients' cognitive and emotional representations of their illness and medication, using both interviews and drawing. We recorded some misconceptions patients have about their condition and medication which could act as barriers to treatment adherence.

Purpose

Despite the high efficacy of current treatments in reducing fracture risk, poor adherence is still a problem in osteoporosis. This qualitative study aims to inform the development of a psychological intervention to increase adherence through the investigation of osteoporosis patients' perceptions of their illness and medication. The self-regulation model (Leventhal) provided the framework for the study.

Method

Participants were 14 female outpatients from a London teaching hospital who suffer with osteoporosis or osteopenia. Data were collected using both semi-structured interviews and drawings. Drawings were used to elicit participants' visual representations (imagery) of their condition.

Results

We found that patients held illness and medication beliefs that were not in accord with current scientific evidence. Interviews revealed that participants had good knowledge of what osteoporosis is, but they had low understanding of the role of medication in reducing fracture risk, various concerns about the side effects of medication, poor understanding of the causes of osteoporosis and uncertainty about how it can be controlled. Additionally, drawings elicited more information about the perceived effects of osteoporosis and emotional reactions to the condition.

Conclusions

Osteoporosis sufferers need a better understanding of their fracture risk and what they can do to control their condition. Concerns about medication need to be addressed in order to improve adherence, particularly in relation to the management of side effects. Since drawings of osteoporosis were found to arouse emotions, it is concluded that risk communication in osteoporosis could benefit from using visual images.

Keywords

Adherence Emotions Illness perceptions Medication beliefs Visual representations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health. We would like to thank Dr. Amelia Moore, the expert patients who assisted the study design, Dr. Alastair Ross, Dr. Nao Kadote, Dr. Kellie Thompson and Dr. Angus Ramsay for validation of data coding.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Van Staa TP et al (2001) Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. Bone 29(6):517–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis JA et al (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9(8):1137–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gauthier A et al (2011) Epidemiological burden of postmenopausal osteoporosis in the UK from 2010 to 2021: estimations from a disease model. Arch Osteoporos 6(1):179–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell M et al (2000) Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 321:694–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haynes R et al (2002) Interventions for helping patients to follow prescriptions for medications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD000011Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O'Donohue WT, Levensky ER (2006) Promoting treatment adherence: a practical handbook for health care providers. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, p 458Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siris ES et al (2006) Adherence to bisphosphonate therapy and fracture rates in osteoporotic women: relationship to vertebral and nonvertebral fractures from 2 US claims databases. Mayo Clin Proc 81(8):1013–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gleeson T et al (2009) Interventions to improve adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications: a systematic literature review. Osteoporos Int 20(12):2127–2134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horne R et al (2005) Concordance, adherence and compliance in medicine taking. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for the NHS service delivery and organisation R & D (NCCSDO), pp 1–372Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petrie K, Weinman J (eds) (1997) Perceptions of health and illness. Current research and applications. Harwood Academic Publishers, Singapore, pp 1–17, Introduction to the perceptions of health and illnessGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carr A, Thompson P, Cooper C (2006) Factors associated with adherence and persistence to bisphosphonate therapy in osteoporosis: a cross-sectional survey. Osteoporos Int 17(11):1638–1644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McHorney CA et al (2007) The impact of osteoporosis medication beliefs and side-effect experiences on non-adherence to oral bisphosphonates. Curr Med Res Opin 23(12):3137–3152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giangregorio L et al (2008) Do patients perceive a link between a fragility fracture and osteoporosis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9(1):38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giangregorio L et al (2009) Osteoporosis risk perceptions among patients who have sustained a fragility fracture. Patient Educ Couns 74(2):213–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leventhal H et al (1997) Illness representations: theoretical foundations. In: Petrie KJ, Weinman JA (eds) Perceptions of health and illness. Current research and applications. Harwood Academic, London, pp 19–45Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(6):555–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horne R (2003) Treatment perceptions and self regulation. In: Routledge (ed) The self regulation of health and illness behaviour. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 138–155Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Broadbent E, Donkin L, Stroh JC (2011) Illness and treatment perceptions are associated with adherence to medications, diet, and exercise in diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 34(2):338–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    French DP, Cooper A, Weinman J (2006) Illness perceptions predict attendance at cardiac rehabilitation following acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res 61(6):757–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Broadbent E et al (2006) Changes in patient drawings of the heart identify slow recovery after myocardial infarction. Psychosom Med 68(6):910–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harrow A et al (2008) Seeing is believing, and believing is seeing: an exploration of the meaning and impact of women's mental images of their breast cancer and their potential origins. Patient Educ Couns 73(2):339–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guillemin M (2004) Understanding illness: using drawings as a research method. Qual Health Res 14(2):272–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ritchie J, Spencer L et al (2003) Carrying out qualitative analysis. Carrying out qualitative analysis in qualitative research in practice. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinstein ND (1989) Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science 246(4935):1232–1233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baumann LJ et al (1989) Illness representations and matching labels with symptoms. Health Psychol 8(4):449–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    French DP et al (2002) The structure of beliefs about the causes of heart attacks: a network analysis. Br J Health Psychol 7(Part 4):463–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lau E et al (2008) Patients' adherence to osteoporosis therapy: exploring the perceptions of postmenopausal women. Can Fam Physician 54(3):394–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zolnierek KB, Dimatteo MR (2009) Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care 47(8):826–834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Witte K (1992) Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr 59(4):329–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Jane Besser
    • 1
    Email author
  • Janet E. Anderson
    • 2
  • John Weinman
    • 3
  1. 1.NIHR King’s Patient Safety and Service Quality Research CentreKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.NIHR King’s Patient Safety and Service Quality Research CentreKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Institute of Psychiatry, Health Psychology SectionKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations