Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 10, pp 1796–1804 | Cite as

Metasynthesis of Patient Attitudes Toward Bone Densitometry

  • Aaron T. Seaman
  • Melissa Steffen
  • Taisha Doo
  • Heather S. Healy
  • Samantha L. Solimeo
Review Paper

Abstract

Background

Bone densitometry (e.g., dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or “DXA”) is strongly associated with osteoporosis treatment; however, rates of DXA are low. While studies have demonstrated a continued need for primary care provider education on the role of DXA in preventive care, little is known about the role of patient attitudes toward DXA. This review’s purpose is to synthesize the evidence about the effects of patient perceptions and experiences of DXA on osteoporosis prevention.

Methods

A metasynthesis was conducted of English language, peer-reviewed publications, searching relevant databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts. Identified articles’ quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist, and an iterative process of data evaluation, integration, and synthesis was used to develop the findings.

Results

Thirteen articles from ten studies were identified, composing an aggregated sample of 265 people (231 women). Participant attitudes toward screening ranged from receptive to ambivalent to concerned about results. Participants’ understandings of DXA and its role in clinical care were limited. Knowledge of osteoporosis was also partial and influenced by lay sources, the media, and health care providers. Primary care providers strongly influenced participant behavior, especially if participants had a more passive approach to health care. Participants reported less concern about expected barriers of health care access and cost.

Conclusion

Minimal knowledge exists of patient perceptions and experiences of DXA among those who are fracture naïve: Prior research has focused primarily on secondary fracture prevention contexts. Our metasynthesis reveals patients’ significant reliance, given their limited risk appraisal and knowledge, upon primary care providers in decision-making. We urge colleagues to conduct qualitative research on DXA barriers among general primary care population in order to facilitate health care delivery systems better equipped to diagnose and treat patients before their first fracture.

KEY WORDS

Osteoporosis Preventive care Qualitative research Systematic reviews 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported in part by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development. The results of this research were presented by Dr. Solimeo at the Society for Applied Anthropology 2018 Annual Meeting in a presentation entitled, “Understanding the Crisis in Osteoporosis Care through Metasynthesis.”

Funding Information

Dr. Solimeo received support from the Center for Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation, Department of Veterans Affairs, Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA (Award No. CIN 13-412) and VA Health Services Research and Development (Award No. CDA 13-272).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.

Supplementary material

11606_2018_4587_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 27.8 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Budhia S, Mikyas Y, Tang M, Badamgarav E. Osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review of US healthcare costs and resource utilization. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(2):147–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker DJ, Yun H, Kilgore ML, et al. Health services utilization after fractures: evidence from Medicare. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010;65A(9):1012–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res. Mar 2007;22(3):465–475.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singer A, Exuzides A, Spangler L, et al. Burden of Illness for osteoporotic fractures compared with other serious diseases among postmenopausal women in the United States. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(1):53–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gold DT. The nonskeletal consequences of osteoporotic fractures. Psychologic and social outcomes. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2001;27(1):255–262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dy CJ, LaMont LE, Ton QV, Lane JM. Sex and gender considerations in male patients with osteoporosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(7):1906–1912.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brenneman SK, Yurgin N, Fan Y. Cost and management of males with closed fractures. Osteoporosis Int. 2013;24(3):825–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tucci JR. Importance of early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis to prevent fractures. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(7 Suppl):S181-S190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Binkley N, Blank RD, Leslie WD, Lewiecki EM, Eisman JA, Bilezikian JP. Osteoporosis in crisis: it’s time to focus on fracture. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(7):1391–1394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khosla S, Cauley JA, Compston J, et al. Addressing the crisis in the treatment of osteoporosis: a path forward. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(3):424–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khosla S, Shane E. A crisis in the treatment of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31(8):1485–1487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewiecki EM, Laster AJ, Miller PD, Bilezikian JP. More bone density testing is needed, not less. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27(4):739–742.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siris ES, Adler R, Bilezikian J, et al. The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(5):1439–1443.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morse LR, Giangregorio L, Battaglino RA, et al. VA-based survey of osteoporosis management in spinal cord injury. PM R. 2009;1(3):240–244.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giangregorio L, Fisher P, Papaioannou A, Adachi JD. Osteoporosis knowledge and information needs in healthcare professionals caring for patients with fragility fractures. Orthop Nurs. 2007;26(1):27–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simonelli C, Killeen K, Mehle S, Swanson L. Barriers to osteoporosis identification and treatment among primary care physicians and orthopedic surgeons. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):334–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skedros JG, Holyoak JD, Pitts TC. Knowledge and opinions of orthopaedic surgeons concerning medical evaluation and treatment of patients with osteoporotic fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88A(1):18–24.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Solomon DH, Connelly MT, Rosen CJ, et al. Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(2):123–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McNamara M, Paik J, Beaton C, Fang M. Male osteoporosis knowledge among Veterans and their providers. Fed Pract. 2009;26(9):28–36.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nelson RE, Nebeker JR, Sauer BC, LaFleur J. Factors associated with screening or treatment initiation among male United States Veterans at risk for osteoporosis fracture. Bone. 2012;50(4):983–988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu C-H, Chen C-H, Chen P-H, et al. Identifying characteristics of an effective fracture liaison service: systematic literature review. Osteoporosis Int. 2018;29(5):1023–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu C-H, Tu S-T, Chang Y-F, et al. Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Bone. 2018;111:92–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakayama A, Major G, Holliday E, Attia J, Bogduk N. Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. Osteoporosis Int. 2016;27(3):873–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barker KL, Toye F, Lowe CJM. A qualitative systematic review of patients’ experience of osteoporosis using meta-ethnography. Arch Osteoporos. 2016;11(1):33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rothmann MJ, Jakobsen PR, Jensen CM, Hermann AP, Smith AC, Clemensen J. Experiences of being diagnosed with osteoporosis: a meta-synthesis. Arch Osteoporos. 2018;13(1):21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chou L, Shamdasani P, Briggs AM, et al. Systematic scoping review of patients’ perceived needs of health services for osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int. 2017;28(11):3077–3098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2007.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bondas T, Hall EO. Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(1):113–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Finfgeld DL. Metasynthesis: The state of the art—so far. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(7):893–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saini M, Shlonsky A. Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    DeJean D, Giacomini M, Simeonov D, Smith A. Finding qualitative research evidence for health technology assessment. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(10):1307–1317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation. NOF Background: Founding and Milestones. 2017. Available at: https://www.nof.org/about-us/nof-background/. Accessed July 3, 2018.
  34. 34.
    Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Qualitative Checklist. 2017. Available at: http://www.casp-uk.net/checklists. Accessed July 3, 2018.
  35. 35.
    Beaton DE, Sujic R, McIlroy Beaton K, Sale J, Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch ER. Patient perceptions of the path to osteoporosis care following a fragility fracture. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(12):1647–1658.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sale JE, Beaton DE, Sujic R, Bogoch ER. '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. 2010;16(3):590–596.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sale JE, Bogoch E, Hawker G, et al. Patient perceptions of provider barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(11):2581–2589.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sale JEM, Cameron C, Hawker G, et al. Strategies used by an osteoporosis patient group to navigate for bone health care after a fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134:229–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sale JEM, Hawker G, Cameron C, et al. Perceived messages about bone health after a fracture are not consistent across healthcare providers. Rheumatol Int. 2015;35(1):97–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Meadows LM, Mrkonjic L, Lagendyk L. Women’s perceptions of future risk after low-energy fractures at midlife. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(1):64–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA. Breaking-bad news: women’s experiences of fractures at midlife. Can J Public Health. 2003;94(6):427–430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA, Lagendyk LE, Petersen KM. After the fall: women’s views of fractures in relation to bone health at midlife. Women Health. 2004;39(2):47–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Edwards BJ, Iris M, Ferkel E, Feinglass J. Postmenopausal women with minimal trauma fractures are unapprised of the existence of low bone mass or osteoporosis. Maturitas. 2006;53(3):260–266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Feldstein AC, Schneider J, Smith DH, et al. Harnessing stakeholder perspectives to improve the care of osteoporosis after a fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(11):1527–1540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Solimeo SL, Weber TJ, Gold DT. Older men’s explanatory model for osteoporosis. Gerontologist. 2011;51(4):530–539.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Emmett CL, Redmond NM, Peters TJ, et al. Acceptability of screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures: a qualitative study with older women. Fam Pract. 2012;29(2):235–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rothmann MJ, Huniche L, Ammentorp J, Barkmann R, Gluer CC, Hermann AP. Women’s perspectives and experiences on screening for osteoporosis (Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, ROSE). Arch Osteoporos. 2014;9:192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dreinhöfer KE, Anderson M, Féron J-M, et al. Multinational survey of osteoporotic fracture management. Osteoporosis Int. 2005;16(2):S44-S53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mendis AS, Ganda K, Seibel MJ. Barriers to secondary fracture prevention in primary care. Osteoporosis Int. 2017;28(10):2913–2919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Eisman J, Clapham S, Kehoe L. Osteoporosis prevalence and levels of treatment in primary care: The Australian BoneCare Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19(12):1969–1975.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Solomon DH, Polinski JM, Stedman M, et al. Improving care of patients at-risk for osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(3):362–367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Boudreau DM, Yu O, Balasubramanian A, et al. A survey of women’s awareness of and reasons for lack of postfracture osteoporotic care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(8):1829–1835.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Weston JM, Norris EV, Clark EM. The invisible disease: making sense of an osteoporosis diagnosis in older age. Qual Health Res. 2011;21(12):1692–1704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch ER, Jamal SA, Beaton DE. Practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: a systematic review. Osteoporosis Int. 2004;15(10):767–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine (This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaron T. Seaman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Melissa Steffen
    • 1
  • Taisha Doo
    • 3
    • 4
  • Heather S. Healy
    • 5
  • Samantha L. Solimeo
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Comprehensive Access & Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE)Iowa City VA Health Care SystemIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of MedicineUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Carver College of MedicineUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  4. 4.University of Chicago (NorthShore) Family Medicine ResidencyGlenviewUSA
  5. 5.University of Iowa Libraries, Hardin Library for the Health SciencesUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations