Advertisement

Bone Health pp 177-181 | Cite as

The Social Context of Bone Health: Conclusions and Future Directions

  • Sharon L. Brennan-OlsenEmail author
  • Jose A. Riancho
  • Justyna J. Miszkiewicz
Chapter

Abstract

There is a clear contribution made by biological anthropology to contemporary efforts to prevent osteoporosis and fracture and an imperative of understanding epigenetics to future risk identification and targeted pharmacological interventions. The three lines of evidence for the effect of socio-economic context on musculoskeletal health demonstrated in the preceding parts in this volume lead to a conclusion that our social background and bone health are often inseparable. Given this relationship, two outcomes for current and future research, prevention and treatment of increased bone fragility observed in ageing populations today can be teased out. Firstly, the educational value of understanding the links between lifestyle and peak bone mass accrual in the first three ontogenetic decades should be recognised and communicated to the younger generations. Secondly, interdisciplinary and all-inclusive efforts by researchers and practising clinicians can spearhead the implementation of lifestyle plans for patients from different socio-economic backgrounds. Ongoing research recording and monitoring bone strength, quantity, and quality in diverse social groups should continue to elucidate lifestyle determinants of skeletal health that can, hopefully, lead to addressing socio-economic inequality and inequity in the future.

Keywords

Interdisciplinary Inequality Inequity Bone health Lifestyle 

References

  1. 1.
    Miszkiewicz JJ, Mahoney P. Ancient human bone microstructure in medieval England: comparisons between two socio-economic groups. Anat Rec. 2016;299(1):42–59.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.23285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miszkiewicz JJ. Linear enamel hypoplasia and age-at-death at medieval (11th–16th centuries) St. Gregory’s Priory and Cemetery, Canterbury, UK. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2015;25(1):79–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brennan-Olsen SL, Page RS, Berk M, Riancho JA, Leslie WD, Wilson SG, Saban KL, Janusek L, Pasco JA, Hodge JM, Quirk SE. DNA methylation and the social gradient of osteoporotic fracture: a conceptual model. Bone. 2016;84:204–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2015.12.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riancho JA, Brennan-Olsen SL. The epigenome at the crossroad between social factors, inflammation, and osteoporosis risk. Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab. 2017;15(2):59–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12018-017-9229-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brennan SL, Henry MJ, Wluka AE, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA, Williams JW, Pasco JA. BMD in population-based adult women is associated with socio-economic status. J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24(5):809–15.  https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.081243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon L. Brennan-Olsen
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jose A. Riancho
    • 3
  • Justyna J. Miszkiewicz
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Medicine-Western HealthUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS)University of Melbourne and Western HealthSt AlbansAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Cantabria, Hospital U.M. Valdecilla, IDIVALSantanderSpain
  4. 4.School of Archaeology and AnthropologyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations