Abstract
Summary
Systematic reviews that examine effectiveness of interventions to improve medicines optimisation do not explain how or why they work. This realist review identified that interventions which effectively optimise medicines use in osteoporosis include opportunities to address patients’ perceptions of illness and treatment and/or support primary care clinician decision making.
Introduction
In people with osteoporosis, adherence to medicines is poorer than other diseases and patients report follow-up is lacking, and multiple unmet information needs. We conducted a rapid realist review to understand what contextual conditions and mechanisms enable interventions to support osteoporosis medication optimisation.
Methods
A primary search identified observational or interventional studies which aimed to improve medicines adherence or optimisation; a supplementary second search identified research of any design to gain additional insights on emerging findings. Extracted data was interrogated for patterns of context-mechanism-outcome configurations, further discussed in team meetings, informed by background literature and the Practicalities and Perception Approach as an underpinning conceptual framework.
Results
We identified 5 contextual timepoints for the person with osteoporosis (identifying a problem; starting medicine; continuing medicine) and the practitioner and healthcare system (making a diagnosis and giving a treatment recommendation; reviewing medicine). Interventions which support patient-informed decision making appear to influence long-term commitment to treatment. Supporting patients’ practical ability to adhere (e.g. by lowering treatment burden and issuing reminders) only appears to be helpful, when combined with other approaches to address patient beliefs and concerns. However, few studies explicitly addressed patients’ perceptions of illness and treatment. Supporting primary care clinician decision making and integration of primary and secondary care services also appears to be important, in improving rates of treatment initiation and adherence.
Conclusions
We identified a need for further research to identify a sustainable, integrated, patient-centred, and cost- and clinically effective model of long-term care for people with osteoporosis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Osteoporosis and consequent fragility fractures are an important cause of disability, impaired quality of life, and mortality [1, 2]. Effective treatments exist which lower fracture risk and are clinically and cost-effective. However, for the last two decades, clinicians and academics have been writing about the problem of poor persistence to medication (defined as the cumulative time duration from initiation to discontinuation of therapy) and adherence (the extent to which the patient’s action matches the agreed recommendations) [3] among people with osteoporosis [4,5,6]. Long-term persistence rates with oral bisphosphonates, the mainstay of treatment for prevention of osteoporotic fractures, are reportedly worse than in other long-term conditions and estimated between 16 and 60% at 1 year [6].
Medicines optimisation is defined as ‘a patient-focused approach to getting the best from investment in and use of medicines that requires a holistic approach, an enhanced level of patient centred professionalism, and partnership between clinical professionals and a patient’ [7]. Medicines optimisation addresses safety and effectiveness, while also encompassing adherence. Thus, the construct of medicines optimisation allows considerations of outcomes important to both patients and healthcare professionals such as patient satisfaction, knowledge, patient involvement in decision making, health status, and adverse events [8].
Previous systematic reviews exist which have examined the effectiveness of interventions to promote adherence in osteoporosis but not medicines optimisation [9, 10]; furthermore, reviews which aim to summarise information about complex interventions are limited in their ability to examine how interventions work in different settings, for which patients, why they have certain effects, including on adherence, but also on a broader range of patient-centred outcomes.
Realist reviews provide an alternative approach to a traditional systematic review by considering ‘what works for whom, in what contexts, to what extent, and how and why?’, with specific attention to context (C), mechanisms of effect (M), and outcomes (O), so-called C-M–O configurations [11]. Recurrent patterns of C-M–O configurations, also called ‘programme theories’, can identify broad rules of how and why certain outcomes occur, and why interventions are effective, or not. Rapid realist reviews have emerged as a practical approach to inform policy making when time is limited, with a focus on engaging stakeholders and identifying context-specific explanations for what works, and why [12].
This review focuses on the interventions, contextual factors, and mechanisms that support medicines optimisation in people with osteoporosis, by answering the following questions:
-
i.
What mechanisms enable components of interventions to support osteoporosis medication optimisation?
-
ii.
What were the underlying contextual conditions that enabled these mechanisms?
Our purpose was to make recommendations for healthcare professionals and patients on key approaches that have potential to be effective and/or ineffective and identify where further research is needed.
Methods
The methods for this review are informed by the 10 steps for a Rapid Realist Review proposed by Saul et al. [12] and our study protocol, registered with PROSPERO (2021 CRD42021240357).
The project scope, questions for review, and purpose statement (steps 1, 2, and 3) were determined through discussion with the Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS) Bone Research Academy Effectiveness Working Group (EWG), an expert in medicines adherence (RH), and clinical academic with experience of realist methods (IM). The EWG includes experts and stakeholders in the field of osteoporosis, including clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates.
Developing initial programme theories
Drawing on the project team’s expertise, this review is informed by previous qualitative research syntheses relating to osteoporosis [13, 14], and a recent realist synthesis about medicine management in older people which helped us develop an understanding of the context and problem [15]. We used a conceptual framework about levels of interventions to address determinants of non-adherence, which we felt would also have relevance for medicines optimisation: the ‘adherence lollipop’ (Supplementary Fig. 1) [16, 17]. The three levels are the patient, the patient-provider interaction, and the healthcare and social environment. Interventions targeted at the patient or patient-clinician interaction need to take into account perceptions (treatment beliefs related to necessity and concern) and practicalities (Supplementary Fig. 2). Using our background literature, we developed a typology of determinants of non-adherence using this conceptual framework and initial candidate Programme Theories (Supplementary Data 1).
Search strategy and study selection
We conducted two searches. Our primary search identified interventional and observational studies which evaluated the effects of interventions, in people with osteoporosis, to optimise medicines or improve adherence. We used a search strategy already used by a previous systematic review in this field (Supplementary Data 2) [9]. We searched four databases: MEDLINE, Psychinfo, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Papers were identified from July 2012 to the date of 19th March 2021. Our key inclusion criteria were to include studies (interventional or observational) which concerned supporting people with osteoporosis in medicines optimisation. After de-duplication of identified records, initial screening of titles and abstracts was undertaken by one reviewer. Selection of included studies was undertaken by reviewers in pairs and disagreement regarding eligibility was resolved by discussion. We assessed study quality using a modified quality appraisal tool adapted from the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPs) in order to appraise the weight of contribution of individual studies to programme theory [18].
Our second search was iterative in nature and aimed at gaining additional insight on included key papers and emerging mechanisms. This included a broader range of study designs and was achieved through citation tracking and reference checking of key papers, discussion with experts, and further searches of Google Scholar (step 6).
Data extraction
Data was extracted on the following: context (C), including patient context, nature of the patient-clinician interactions, and health-care setting; mechanisms (M), identifying any targeted determinants; and outcomes (O), informed by our initial programme theories (step 7). The data extraction proforma (Supplementary Data 3) was initially pretested and piloted independently by reviewers on 3 studies.
Analysis
Extracted data was interrogated by five (ZP, IM, AS, LST, OB) authors independently for patterns of C-M–O configurations, using an IF–THEN approach to statements. Weekly team meetings were held to critically appraise, analyse, and synthesise the data. As we found we could not adequately refine our CMOs within our given timeframe and resource, in line with other published rapid realist reviews [19], we decided to instead focus on identifying the key mechanisms that were observed across multiple interventions with potential to be effective; these were mechanisms within each (complex) intervention that either had evidence of effectiveness within interventional studies or within supporting literature, such as our supporting background reviews. We also focussed on identifying contextual factors that were associated with specific mechanisms.
Validation of the identified Contexts and Mechanisms occurred in two meetings of the EWG (step 8). Within this workshop, recommendations for research and practice were co-developed (step 9, 10).
Patient and public involvement
The idea for the study was informed by a priority setting exercise with people with osteoporosis [20, 21]. The initial protocol and scope were discussed within a dedicated meeting of ROS patient advocates who advised on the title, search strategy, and scope. Patient advocates were involved in the EWG meetings.
Results
The primary search identified 26 full-text articles of existing interventions (11 from the primary search, supplemented with 15 from Cornelisson et al. [9]) (Table 1, and further details in Supplementary Table 1). The iterative secondary search further identified 17 records that either provided further insight into these interventions or our emerging mechanisms of interest (Supplementary data 4).
Context
Eighteen studies identified in the primary search were situated within specialised outpatient clinics [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31], or Fracture Liaison Services (FLSs — services in which a co-ordinator identifies patients with fragility fractures, carries out risk assessments, initiates evidence-based interventions for bone health and falls) [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39], with 8 studies in community pharmacy services or primary care, or a combination [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. The setting for one study was unclear [46]. In studies reporting patient-professional interventions, the clinician was most often a nurse, but also pharmacist, specialist doctor, primary care practitioner (PCP), or non-clinician. Patient participants were all female in 10 studies, mostly taking oral medication (with one exception relating to daily teriparatide injections [47]) and the mean age, where reported, ranged from 62.4 to 75.6 years.
The most important contextual factors appeared to be related to timing of the intervention from the first identification of a problem to medicine reviews. We used the five stages of medicine management adapted from the MEMORABLE study to describe these timepoints of interest from the perspective of the person with osteoporosis and the clinician and health-care system (Fig. 1) [19].
Mechanisms and outcomes
We identified six key groups of mechanisms as illustrated in Fig. 2, aligned to the three ‘lollipop’ levels of intervention and crossing over various contextual stages (timepoints) of medicine management (Fig. 1) [17]. Patient mechanisms were typically targeted at unintentional non-adherence, to increase patient capability and overcome practical difficulties. Patient-clinician mechanisms aimed to address intentional non-adherence, and healthcare mechanisms had potential for multiple effects. We discuss the main mechanisms in relation to the five contextual stages, below, with CMO configurations summarised in Supplementary Table 2.
Person with osteoporosis: identifying the problem (step 1)
Mechanisms to support patient-informed decision making
From our background literature, we identified that patients may find it hard to ‘identify the problem’ and believe that osteoporosis is a normal condition of ageing for which treatment is futile, or fail to believe that they are at risk [13]. We identified interventions which are specifically targeted at helping patients understand osteoporosis and make informed decisions, including a decision aid to promote shared decision making about medicines in clinical consultations, and educational brochures or videos, to provide information. For example, a within-consultation decision aid, compared to usual primary care, was effective at increasing patient engagement, knowledge, and understanding of fracture risk but did not change adherence, although a trend towards higher initiation rates was seen [42, 48].
Group interaction with peers in group consultation may be a further factor to support informed decision making although two comparison study identified adherence rates were similar following traditional or group consultations [25, 49].
Two large trials which evaluated information, which was personalised and designed with behaviour change in mind, compared with usual care, showed no difference in clinical outcomes, such as persistence or process outcomes such as prescriptions and testing [23, 40]. One explanation for the failure of these interventions to lead to changes in prescribing or medicine taking, despite increasing patient’s acceptance of the problem, may be that the intervention was targeted at patients only, and clinician actions are needed to prescribe and establish patients on medication.
Although inferential, studies in the review suggested other factors might influence patient perception of their own susceptibility, and therefore decision making. Specifically, findings of two studies suggest BMD results may inform perception of risk and decision making about taking medicines and adherence over the longer term [38, 44]. Communication of individual fracture risk results (using the FRAX tool) was identified a possible factor which could inform decision making. However, studies which evaluated the impact of FRAX on clinical outcomes (in primary care) did not describe how this was communicated to the patient [42, 44], and an included qualitative study identified non-adherent women frequently questioned or appeared not to understand their fracture risk [50].
Practitioner and health system: establishing diagnosis and recommending medication (step 2)
Mechanisms to support primary care clinician decision making
Our background literature identified that primary care clinicians experienced a number of uncertainties around osteoporosis management [13]. In our findings, interventions, in outpatient or FLS settings, which included support for primary care clinical decision making at treatment initiation, e.g. additional investigations and individualised counselling, were associated with improvements in initiation rates [27]. Similarly, within the SCOOP trial in primary care [44, 51], identification, investigation, and treatment recommendations were enacted by the study team in the intervention arm, suggesting clinician decision making support may have been an important mechanism in achieving observed higher initiation rates.
Person with osteoporosis: starting medication (step 3)
Mechanisms to reduce treatment burden and patient workload
Interventions targeted at making the first prescription easier or more convenient for patients were associated with improved initiation rates and included automated phone calls with an option to press a number to be transferred to pharmacy [52], and specialists FLSs which issued prescriptions directly meaning the patient did not have to visit their Primary Care Provider (PCP) [38].
Mechanisms to support patient-informed decision making
The use of an additional community pharmacy consultation in new starters was used to reiterate treatment benefits, the importance of adherence, lifestyle management, and practical issues about requesting repeat prescriptions but also to elicit patient concerns and identify patient-specific solutions [53]. This intervention had a small impact on adherence at 1 year in new starters of osteoporosis medications. Similarly, Ganda et al. identified patients attending FLS, who had early primary care appointments after starting, were more likely to adhere over 6 months [34].
Person with osteoporosis — continuing medication (step 4)
Mechanisms to support reinforcement, routinisation, and memory
Follow-up calls or appointments have also been used to reinforce messages or remind patients; however, where the purpose of the call only to give information, e.g. to remind about educational sessions [46], there was no increase in long-term adherence identified.
Other interventions to remind people to take their medicine included automated phone calls, education materials, text message reminders, alarm clocks, or calendar stickers. A study examining the feasibility and acceptability of personalised text messages found that less than half of participants wanted text reminders [28]. A package of resources including education booklets, memo stickers (for calendars), and alarm clocks did not alter persistence over 12 months in a RCT of 334 patients [22]. The only support for alarm clock reminders improving adherence, comes from a non-randomised study, which may suggest that patient selection may be important [54].
Mechanisms to support patient-informed decision making
Our background literature identified several qualitative studies that involved people with osteoporosis reappraising the relevance and purpose of medication, including searching for evidence of treatment effectiveness and considering concerns about side effects and/or safety [7]. These are described as ‘disruption loops’ in Fig. 1.
Eliciting and addressing patient concerns appears to be an important component of follow-up interventions which were successful in improving medicines adherence in both outpatient and primary care settings [27, 45, 47]. Although most often these interventions were delivered by training clinicians, in one FLS-located study, trained medical secretaries elicited problems, emphasised the importance of treatment, and provided practical suggestions or support in contacting their physician or person in charge or procuring the medicine (thereby reducing patient burden and/or increasing patient capacity) [33].
There is limited evidence to suggest bone density scans [43], but not bone turnover markers [55, 56], improve adherence, possibly by informing patients’ and clinicians’ patient reappraisal about treatment effectiveness. Twenty-nine percent of women in one community-based trial highlighted that the bone turnover markers influenced their decision making [57].
Mechanisms to reduce treatment burden and patient workload
Reduced drug frequency also has potential to reduce patient ‘burden’. A number of studies found that persistence was higher in patients who were prescribed monthly or weekly oral drugs [22, 24], findings which are confirmed by a meta-analysis of 9 studies comparing once weekly with once daily dosing [58].
Practitioner and health systems: reviewing medication — step 5
Mechanisms to support clinician decision making
Regular follow-up with patients enabled FLS or community pharmacy clinicians to glean information from patients to guide treatment decisions leading to changes in outcomes other than adherence, for example having their treatment appropriately stopped because of side effects, or the indication for preventative treatment (glucocorticoids) being withdrawn [39, 45]. Access to the full electronic health record and collaborative working with other clinicians involved in the patient care facilitated clinical decision making [45]. Treatment switching has also been shown to be more common in BMD-monitored patients [43], and in the presence of continued support from specialist FLS to primary care [27].
Mechanisms to offer targeted support
Targeting follow-up interventions to non-adherent, high-risk patients has been demonstrated to be a clinically and cost-effective strategy [45, 59]. Strategies to identify these patients included using standardised search algorithms in a pharmacy database to identify patients not re-filling oral medication prescriptions or an ‘adherence scoring tool’ patient questionnaire, asking if teriparatide treatment had been omitted, if people had ‘lost interest’ in their treatment and if people were clear on the benefits [45, 47]. In both studies, the targeted intervention involved a clinician-patient consultation to explore problems and reiterate treatment importance. Self-reported adherence may not be an effective case finding strategy as one included study identified no correlation between self-reported compliance and persistence as assessed by pharmaceutical claims data [34].
Mechanisms to offer integrated and sustainable support
Our background literature identified uncertainty about professional roles, between primary and secondary care as an important context to successful treatment [7]. Medication persistence with oral treatment was no different between primary and secondary or specialist (FLS) care interventions [34, 41]. Collaboration between primary and secondary care may be more important than who actually delivers the intervention [35]. In one FLS study, the authors noted the FLS intervention increased work for the patient and PCP and postulated this was why the intervention was unsuccessful at altering long-term medication outcomes [32].
We identified only one study which attempted to measure patient outcomes after FLS discharge, which had high rates of loss to follow-up [60]; although self-reported adherence in the group contacted after FLS discharge (mean 19 months) was high (74%), unmet information needs were expressed by one-third.
Discussion
Summary of findings
In this rapid realist review, we have identified important contexts and mechanisms key to optimising medicine use in people with osteoporosis. Using a 5-step model of medicines optimisation, we identified that for patients, interventions which support informed decision making are important during treatment initiation and may improve long-term commitment to treatment; potential mechanisms include improving their knowledge and understanding. However, supporting informed decision making with follow-up appointments is also important to manage ‘disruption loops’, where patients may question the effectiveness or safety of treatment. Targeting this follow-up to those who most need it, also shows promise as a cost and clinically effective strategy. Supporting primary care clinician decision making and integration of primary and secondary care services also appears to be important in improving rates of treatment initiation and adherence. Supporting patients’ ability to adhere (e.g. by lowering treatment burden and issuing reminders) may be helpful to address practical difficulties, but there is little evidence for interventions which address practical treatment barriers without addressing patient beliefs and concerns.
Importantly, this review highlights a broad range of important outcomes of importance to our stakeholders and patient partners. Interventions which have been labelled as ‘unsuccessful’ for not significantly increasing adherence rates, have been identified as leading to changes in other important outcomes, such as identification of side effects and appropriate treatment switching or stopping. Paradoxically, previous research has neglected these outcomes by withdrawing patients from studies who had side effects and needed changes in treatment, in order to solely focus on adherence [39].
Using a realist approach has enabled this review to move beyond a limited summary for what works and does not work, to understand what components of interventions work, for whom and why. Our findings suggest that follow-up which aims purely to remind, persuade, or reinforce treatment importance is insufficient to improve adherence and need to be combined with opportunities to address patients’ perceptions of their condition and its treatment (necessity benefits and concerns). In realist terms, we consider that interventions which aim to ‘push’ information onto the patient are ineffective and interventions which ‘interact’, and are person-centred are needed [61]. This is in line with UK NICE guidance on Medicines Adherence (NICE) [3], informed by the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach [18], which emphasises that patients make decisions about medicines based on their understanding of their condition and the possible treatments, their view of their own need for the medicine, and their concerns about the medicine. Although some interventions explicitly mentioned addressing patient concerns, no studies specifically reported eliciting or addressing patient perceptions about treatment need. Furthermore, understanding of ‘the condition’ may be problematic in the context of osteoporosis medicine which is recommended on the basis of high fracture risk, rather than for a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis ‘treatment’ is potentially a confusing concept when ‘treatment’ addresses fracture prevention rather than relief of symptoms.
Limited evidence from our review suggests that other interventions to remind and support routinisation are helpful, and may support persistence only, if patients want them, and they can be adapted to their needs. A significant literature evaluates the use of text reminders, although it has mainly focused on younger adults [62], meaning that acceptability in people with osteoporosis is likely to be affected by health and/or digital literacy, or other barriers to communication such as hearing, visual, or cognitive impairment. Importantly, only one study within our review measured health literacy of participants and digital literacy and other barriers to communication were not generally considered or reported [40]. This is particularly important as people with low health literacy are more at risk of poor health outcomes and are less likely to engage with or adhere to recommended treatments [63].
Strengths and limitations
Strengths of this review included the depth and breadth of the underpinning background literature, supporting theory and expertise of the study team. In addition, we had extensive stakeholder involvement, including with clinicians, academics, representatives from the ROS, and patient advocates to validate our emerging programme theories. However, this review is subject to a number of limitations. First, our search may have missed studies as we used the term ‘osteoporosis’ to define the population but osteoporosis medicines may be given to people at high fracture risk, without this diagnosis. The quality of the included studies was mostly low, and the interventions within them often not described in detail. A number of the included studies were from specialist settings, although the findings still have relevance for non-specialist settings. Furthermore, authors rarely suggested mechanisms or underpinning theory supporting their interventions. This depth of description and study quality limited the available data to extract regarding context and mechanisms; however, our existing background qualitative literature, and the recent realist review in a similar area enabled us to theorise candidate C-M–O configurations. Our secondary searches were necessarily brief in view of the nature of this rapid realist review, and more attention to supporting literature may have enabled more exploration of possible mechanisms.
Implications for clinical practice
We suggest the findings of this review highlight the need for all healthcare professionals involved in the care of people with osteoporosis to consider opportunities to promote informed decision making, and a person-centred approach, in all patient contacts. Our stakeholder group felt strongly that outcomes other than adherence are important, and that the clinical community should recognise the value of long-term care and follow-up, to not just monitor adherence but to address concerns, identify side effects, monitor effectiveness, and discuss other issues such as lifestyle management. As both national and international audits which evaluate the success of FLS focus on adherence as a key performance indicator [64], we suggest that services and national audit schemes might consider additional measures of ‘success’ including the extent of patient participation and involvement in shared decision making; however, choosing optimum outcome measures for shared decision making is also a question for research [65]. Finally, a particularly interesting finding is the importance and value of including elements of medicine optimisation interventions which address primary care healthcare professional needs in addition to the needs of patients; as such, specialist services might consider to what extent they already do this, or can enhance this aspect of their service.
Implications for research
We identified three key recommendations for researchers in this field. First, we suggest researchers consider how new interventions designed to improve medicines optimisation address the mechanisms we have described, and target both clinician and patient. Reporting of interventions would be improved by use of the TIDIER (template for intervention description and replication) checklist [66]. Second, we strongly suggest researchers target and measure outcomes other than adherence, including other clinical outcomes, patient experience measures, and cost-effectiveness. Finally, we ask researchers to consider how to engage and include populations who are under-represented in current work, including steroid users, and those most at risk of poor outcomes, including those with low health literacy and other barriers to communication.
In discussion with our stakeholders, we identified a need for further research to identify a sustainable, integrated, patient-centred, and cost- and clinically effective model of long-term care for people with osteoporosis. Further realist evaluation is needed to explore the model and extend, confirm, or refute the emergent C-M–O configurations we have identified. This might include consideration for.
-
Clinical decision-making needs
-
How informed and shared decision making can be optimised, with specific attention to eliciting and addressing beliefs and concerns
-
The role of clinical tests to monitor drug effectiveness
-
The role of personalised or stratified approaches to long-term care
Conclusion
For the first time, this rapid realist review summarises the important contexts and mechanisms which appear to be important in optimising medicine use in people with osteoporosis. We suggest people taking osteoporosis medicines need more patient-centred interventions and support to help them make informed decisions and reduce treatment burden. Targeting additional support and follow-up to those most in need may be a cost- and clinically effective approach to achieving this. Specialist services should consider the extent to which they integrate with, and support primary care clinical decision making, to impact long-term clinical outcomes.
References
Borgstrom F, Lekander I, Ivergard M et al (2013) The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS)–quality of life during the first 4 months after fracture. Osteoporos Int 24:811–823
Cooper C (1997) The crippling consequences of fractures and their impact on quality of life. Am J Med 103:12S-17S
NICE (2009) Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London
Papaioannou A, Ioannidis G, Adachi JD et al (2003) Adherence to bisphosphonates and hormone replacement therapy in a tertiary care setting of patients in the CANDOO database. Osteoporos Int 14:808–813
Seeman E, Compston J, Adachi J et al (2007) Non-compliance: the Achilles’ heel of anti-fracture efficacy. Osteoporos Int 18:711–719
Hiligsmann M, Cornelissen D, Vrijens B et al (2019) Determinants, consequences and potential solutions to poor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). Osteoporos Int 30(11):2155–2165
Royal Pharmaceutical Society (2013) Medicines optimisation: helping patients to make the most of medicines. Good practice guide for healthcare professionals in England. Royal Pharmaceutical Society, London
Ryan R, Santesso N, Lowe D et al (2014) Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD007768. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007768.pub3. Accessed 10 Nov 2021
Cornelissen D, de Kunder S, Si L, European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspect of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) et al (2020) Interventions to improve adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications: an updated systematic review. Osteoporos Int 31(9):1645–1669
Gleeson T, Iversen M, Avorn J et al (2009) Interventions to improve adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications: a systematic literature review. Osteoporos Int 20:2127–2134
Pawson R (2002) Evidence-based policy: the promise of realist synthesis’. Evaluation 8(3):340–358
Saul J, Willis C, Bitz J, Best A (2013) A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review. Implement Sci 8(1):103
Paskins Z, Crawford-Manning F, Cottrell E et al (2020) Acceptability of bisphosphonates among patients, clinicians and managers: a systematic review and framework synthesis. BMJ Open 10(11):e040634
Raybould G, Babatunde O, Evans A et al (2018) Expressed information needs of patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures: a systematic review. Arch Osteoporos 13(1):55
Maidment I, Lawson S, Wong G et al (2020) Medication management in older people: the MEMORABLE realist synthesis. NIHR Journals Library, Southampton
Horne R, Weinman J, Barbr N et al (2005) Concordance, adherence and compliance in medicine taking Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D (NCCSDO). Available at https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2027234. Accessed 10 Nov 2021
Horne R, Cooper V, Wileman V, Chan A (2019) Supporting adherence to medicines for long-term conditions. Eur Psychol 24:82–96
Hayden J, Van der Windt D, Cartwright J et al (2013) Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 158(4):280–286
Tsang J, Blakeman T, Hegarty J et al (2015) Understanding the implementation of interventions to improve the management of chronic kidney disease in primary care: a rapid realist review. Implement Sci 11:47
Paskins Z, Jinks C, Mahmood W et al (2017) Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a general population survey. Arch Osteoporos 12(1):45
Hawarden A, Jinks C, Mahmood W et al (2020) Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study. Arch Osteoporos 15(1):1–10
Bianchi M, Duca P, Vai S et al (2015) Improving adherence to and persistence with oral therapy of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 26(5):1629–1638
Cram P, Wolinsky F, Lou Y et al (2016) Patient-activation and guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment after bone density testing: the PAADRN randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 27(12):3513–3524
Gonnelli S, Caffarelli C, Rossi S et al (2016) How the knowledge of fracture risk might influence adherence to oral therapy of osteoporosis in Italy: the ADEOST study. Aging Clin Exp Res 28:459–468
Liu C, Feasel A, Kline G, Billington E (2021) Pharmacotherapy decisions among postmenopausal women attending a group medical consultation or a one-on-one specialist consultation at an osteoporosis center: an observational cohort study. Osteoporos Int 32(7):1421–1427
Oral A, Lorenc R (2015) Compliance, persistence, and preference outcomes of postmenopausal osteoporotic women receiving a flexible or fixed regimen of daily risedronate: A multicenter, prospective, parallel group study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 49(1):67–74
Roux S, Beaulieu M, Beaulieu MC et al (2013) Priming primary care physicians to treat osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: an integrated multidisciplinary approach. J Rheumatol 40(5):703–711
Sagalla N, Lee R, Lyles K et al (2021) Extent of and reasons for osteoporosis medication non-adherence among veterans and feasibility of a pilot text message reminder intervention. Arch Osteoporos 16(1):21
Seuffert P, Sagebien C, McDonnell C et al (2016) Evaluation of osteoporosis risk and initiation of a nurse practitioner intervention program in an orthopedic practice. Arch Osteoporos 11:1
Temachika S, Sasaki K, Hayami Y (2018) Patient satisfaction and efficacy of switching from weekly bisphosphonates to monthly minodronate for treatment and prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in Japanese patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial. Arch Osteoporos 13:67
Wilton-Clark M, Feasel L, Kline G, O’Billington E (2020) Autonomy begets adherence: decisions to start and persist with osteoporosis treatment after group medical consultation. Arch Osteoporos 15:138
Beaton D, Mamdani M, Zheng H et al (2017) Improvements in osteoporosis testing and care are found following the wide scale implementation of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening Program: an interrupted time series analysis. Medicine 96:48
Ducoulombier V, Luraschi H, Forzy G et al (2015) Contribution of phone follow-up to improved adherence to oral osteoporosis treatment. Am J Pharm Benefits 7(3):e81–e89
Ganda K, Schaffer A, Pearson Seibel MJ (2014) Compliance and persistence to oral bisphosphonate therapy following initiation within a secondary fracture prevention program: a randomised controlled trial of specialist vs. non-specialist management. Osteoporos Int 25(4):1345–1355
Makras P, Babis G, Chronopoulos E et al (2020) Experience gained from the implementation of the fracture liaison service in Greece. Arch Osteoporos 15:12
McAlister F, Ye C, Beaupre L et al (2019) Adherence to osteoporosis therapy after an upper extremity fracture: a pre-specified substudy of the C-STOP randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 30:127–134
Scholten D, Bray J, Wang K et al (2020) Implementation of a fracture liaison service and its effects on osteoporosis treatment adherence and secondary fracture at a tertiary care academic health system. Arch Osteoporos 15(1):80
Senay A, Fernandes J, Delisle J et al (2019) Persistence and compliance to osteoporosis therapy in a fracture liaison service: a prospective cohort study. Arch Osteoporos 14(1):1–11
Van den Berg P, Van Haard P, Van der Veer E et al (2018) A dedicated Fracture Liaison Service telephone program and use of bone turnover markers for evaluating 1-year persistence with oral bisphosphonates. Osteoporos Int 29(4):813–824
Danila M, Outman R, Rahn E et al (2018) Evaluation of a multimodal, direct-to-patient educational intervention targeting barriers to osteoporosis care: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Miner Res 33(5):763–772
Hitz M, Arup S, Holm J et al (2020) Outcome of osteoporosis evaluation, treatment, and follow-up in patients referred to a specialized outpatient clinic compared to patients in care of general practitioners. Arch Osteoporos 15(1):1–11
LeBlanc A, Wang T, Wyatt K et al (2015) Encounter decision aid vs. clinical decision support or usual care to support patient-centered treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial II. PLoS One 10(5):e0128063
Leslie W, Morin S, Martineau P et al (2019) Association of bone density monitoring in routine clinical practice with anti-osteoporosis medication use and incident fractures: a matched cohort study. J Bone Miner Res 34(10):1808–1814
Parsons C, Harvey N, Shepstone L et al (2020) Systematic screening using FRAX® leads to increased use of, and adherence to, anti-osteoporosis medications: an analysis of the UK SCOOP trial. Osteoporos Int 31(1):67–75
Stuurman-Bieze A, Hiddink E, Van Boven J, Vegter S (2014) Proactive pharmaceutical care interventions decrease patients’ nonadherence to osteoporosis medication. Osteoporos Int 25(6):1807–1812
Tüzün Ş, Akyüz G, Eskiyurt N et al (2013) Impact of the training on the compliance and persistence of weekly bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled study. Int J Med Sci 10(13):1880
Van Maren M, Wyers C, Driessen J et al (2019) Two-year persistence with teriparatide improved significantly after introduction of an educational and motivational support program. Osteoporos Int 30(9):1837–1844
Montori V, Shah N, Pencille L et al (2011) Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J med 124(6):549–556
Baqir W, Gray W, Blair A et al (2020) Osteoporosis group consultations are as effective as usual care: results from a non-inferiority randomized trial. Lifestyle Med 1(1):e3
Salter C, McDaid L, Bhattacharya D et al (2014) Abandoned acid? Understanding adherence to bisphosphonate medications for the prevention of osteoporosis among older women: a qualitative longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 2(9):1
Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Cooper C et al (2018) Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391(10122):741–747
Cizmic A, Heilmann R, Milchak J et al (2015) Impact of interactive voice response technology on primary adherence to bisphosphonate therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 26:2131–2136
Spence M, Makarem A, Reyes S, Nguyen C (2017) Evaluation of an outpatient pharmacy clinical services program on adherence and fractures among patients with osteoporosis. J Contemp Pharm Pract 64(3):8–14
Nho JH, Lee YK, Ha YC et al (2016) Can alarming improve compliance with weekly bisphosphonate in patients with osteoporosis? J Bone Metab 23(2):51–54
Delmas P, Vrijens B, Eastell R et al (2007) Effect of monitoring bone turnover markers on persistence with risedronate treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:1296–1304
Clowes J, Peel N, Eastell R (2004) The impact of monitoring on adherence and persistence with antiresorptive treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:1117–1123
Silverman S, Nasser K, Nattrass S et al (2012) Impact of bone turnover markers and/or educational information on persistence to oral bisphosphonate therapy: a community setting-based trial. Osteoporos Int 23:1069–1074
Iglay K, Cao X, Mavros P et al (2015) Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of medication adherence with once-weekly versus once-daily therapy. Clin Ther 37(8):1813–1821
Van Boven J, Stuurman-Bieze A, Hiddink E et al (2014) Medication monitoring and optimization: a targeted pharmacist program for effective and cost-effective improvement of chronic therapy adherence. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 20(8):786–792
Hui N, Fraser S, Wong P (2020) Patients discharged from a fracture liaison service still require follow-up and bone health advice. Arch Osteoporos 15:118
Emmel N, Greenhalgh J, Manzano A et al eds (2018) Doing realist research. Sage, London
Thakkar J, Kurup R, Laba T et al (2016) Mobile telephone text messaging for medication adherence in chronic disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 176(3):340–349
Berkman N, Sheridan S, Donahue K et al (2011) Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 155(2):97–107
Majumdar S, Lier D, McAlister F et al (2019) Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions to improve quality of care after upper extremity fracture: results from a randomized trial (C-STOP Trial. J Bone Miner Res 34(7):1220–1228
NICE (2021) Shared Decision Making. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London
Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I et al (2014) Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 348:g1687
Acknowledgements
This Rapid Realist Review was commissioned by the Effectiveness Working Group of the Royal Osteoporosis Society Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy, to inform the Society’s 2020 Research Road Map and Cure Strategy. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Dr Lizzie Cottrell and Dr John Edwards in initial protocol writing and Sally Lawson, in protocol and early analysis. The authors are grateful to Caroline Sangan, Belinda Thompson, and Francesca Thompson for their assistance in convening the Working Group, whose scientific membership comprises: Prof Eugene McCloskey (Chair); Dr Zoe Paskins (Vice-Chair); Prof David Armstrong; Dr Elizabeth Curtis; Dr John Edwards; Dr Kassim Javaid; Prof Thomas Hill; Prof Terry O’Neill; Prof Michael Stone; Dr Jennifer Walsh; Ms Janice McKinley; Ms Corinne Turnbull. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the support of other members of the Royal Osteoporosis Society Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy: Professor Juliet Compston (Chair); Professor Nick Harvey (Vice-Chair); Professor David Reid (Senior Medical Advisor); Nic Vine (Patient Advocate); and Mary Bishop (Patient Advocate).
Funding
This work was supported by funding from the Effectiveness Working Group of the Royal Osteoporosis Society Osteoporosis and Bone Research Academy. ZP is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018–18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
RH reports speaker engagements with honoraria with the following companies: AbbVie, Abbott, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Sharp Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Roche, Sanofi, Shire Pharmaceuticals, TEVA, UCB. RH is Founding Director of a UCL-Business company (Spoonful of Sugar Ltd) providing consultancy on treatment engagement and patient support programmes to healthcare policy makers, providers, and pharmaceutical industry. ZP reports unpaid consultancy for UCB Pharma. OB, AS, LST, and IM report no conflicts of interest. Also, Professor Rob Horne is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR, Applied Research Collaboration (ARC)), North Thames at Bart’s Health NHS Trust and Asthma UK (AUKCAR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Paskins, Z., Babatunde, O., Sturrock, A. et al. Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstance. Osteoporos Int 33, 2245–2257 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06453-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06453-4