Joanna E. M. Sale

Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture—a new understanding based on fracture patients’ communication

SummaryWe examined patients’ communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not connect fractures to bone health. The term “fragility” fracture was a misnomer to patients who perceived the event as physically and emotionally traumatic. Improved communication about such fractures could facilitate awareness of bone health.IntroductionWe examined patients’ communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not perceive the connection between their fracture and low bone mass.MethodsA descriptive phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. During face-to-face interviews, the participants described the experience of their fracture in detail and the circumstances surrounding the fracture. Data analysis was guided by Giorgi’s methodology. English-speaking male and female patients aged 65+ years and “high” risk for future fracture were eligible and screened for osteoporosis through an established screening program at an urban teaching hospital.ResultsWe recruited 30 participants (9 males, 21 females), aged 65–88, who presented with a hip (n = 11), wrist (n = 11), shoulder (n = 6), or other (n = 2) fracture. Ten of the 30 fractures occurred inside the home and the remaining fractures occurred outside the home. Sustaining a fragility fracture was perceived as a traumatic event, both physically and emotionally. In general, participants used forceful, action-oriented words and referred to hard surfaces to describe the experience. Explanations for the fracture, other than bone quality, were often reported, especially that falls were “freak” or “fluke” events. Patients who sustained a fracture under more mundane circumstances seemed more likely to perceive a connection between the fracture and their bone health.ConclusionsThe term fragility fracture was a misnomer for many older adults. By reexamining how this term is communicated to fracture patients, health care providers may better facilitate patients’ awareness of bone health.

Patient Perceptions of the Path to Osteoporosis Care Following a Fragility Fracture

Coordinator-based osteoporosis (OP) screening programs for fragility-fracture patients in orthopedic environments improve rates of OP testing and care, but there are still gaps in care. The purpose of this study was to understand the process by which patients decided whether to proceed with OP testing or care within these programs. Twenty-four fragility-fracture patients in the OP screening program at a large, urban, university hospital in Canada participated in one of five focus groups. Focus group transcripts were sorted and coded. Links between themes were developed to generate a description of the process leading to successful initiation of OP care after a fragility fracture. To initiate OP testing and care, patients had to both comprehend the link between their fragility fracture and OP, and make an action-oriented appraisal of what action to take. Several modifiable facilitators and barriers influenced the process between screening and undergoing OP testing and initiating treatment.

A qualitative study of the consequences of knee symptoms: ‘It's like you're an athlete and you go to a couch potato’

Objectives To explore the perceived consequences of knee symptoms on the lives of people aged 35–65 years who had diagnosed osteoarthritis (OA) or OA-like symptoms. Design A qualitative study with six focus groups and 10 one-on-one interviews. Constructivist grounded theory guided data collection and analysis. Data were analysed using the constant comparative method. Setting Toronto, Canada. Participants 51 participants (median age 49; 61% female) who self-reported knee OA or reported knee pain, aching or stiffness on most days of the past month participated in the study. Results The core finding, disruption and change, illustrates the range of perceived consequences of knee symptoms in peoples’ lives. Participants described the consequences of symptoms on their physical activity (giving up high-level activities or changing how or how much they performed activities), social life (leisure, family and work) and emotional life. Knee symptoms also altered the way participants thought about their bodies and themselves. They reported that they had a new awareness of their knee and that they no longer trusted their knee. They also conveyed that their sense of self was altered. Conclusions This study illuminates the significant and varied consequences that mild to moderate knee symptoms have on the lives of adults age 35–65 years. Findings highlight the need for clinicians to tailor advice and support to the individuals needs considering their symptoms, the consequences of symptoms on their lives and their personal context.

Persistence and Remission of Musculoskeletal Pain in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Results from the Cardiovascular Health Study

To characterize longitudinal patterns of musculoskeletal pain in a community sample of older adults over a 6‐year period and to identify factors associated with persistence of pain.

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care - systematic decision aid development and study protocol

BackgroundCare of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice.ObjectivesTo systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework.Methods1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice.2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness.3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity.4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis.5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign.DiscussionInterprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach.

Peer-to-peer mentoring for individuals with early inflammatory arthritis: feasibility pilot

Objectives To examine the feasibility and potential benefits of early peer support to improve the health and quality of life of individuals with early inflammatory arthritis (EIA). Design Feasibility study using the 2008 Medical Research Council framework as a theoretical basis. A literature review, environmental scan, and interviews with patients, families and healthcare providers guided the development of peer mentor training sessions and a peer-to-peer mentoring programme. Peer mentors were trained and paired with a mentee to receive (face-to-face or telephone) support over 12 weeks. Setting Two academic teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Participants Nine pairs consisting of one peer mentor and one mentee were matched based on factors such as age and work status. Primary outcome measure Mentee outcomes of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/biological treatment use, self-efficacy, self-management, health-related quality of life, anxiety, coping efficacy, social support and disease activity were measured using validated tools. Descriptive statistics and effect sizes were calculated to determine clinically important (>0.3) changes. Peer mentor self-efficacy was assessed using a self-efficacy scale. Interviews conducted with participants examined acceptability and feasibility of procedures and outcome measures, as well as perspectives on the value of peer support for individuals with EIA. Themes were identified through constant comparison. Results Mentees experienced improvements in the overall arthritis impact on life, coping efficacy and social support (effect size >0.3). Mentees also perceived emotional, informational, appraisal and instrumental support. Mentors also reported benefits and learnt from mentees’ fortitude and self-management skills. The training was well received by mentors. Their self-efficacy increased significantly after training completion. Participants’ experience of peer support was informed by the unique relationship with their peer. All participants were unequivocal about the need for peer support for individuals with EIA. Conclusions The intervention was well received. Training, peer support programme and outcome measures were demonstrated to be feasible with modifications. Early peer support may augment current rheumatological care. Trial registration number NCT01054963, NCT01054131.

Secondary Prevention After an Osteoporosis-Related Fracture: An Overview

This article is an overview of the status of postfracture secondary prevention programs. The concept of fracture risk, the inclusion of fracture risk in clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis, and how fracture risk has contributed to the development of postfracture secondary prevention programs are described. The scope of postfracture secondary prevention programs, the gaps in care that persist despite these initiatives, and the potential reasons for these gaps are also described. Recommendations for future research in the area of postfracture secondary prevention are provided.

Erratum to: Perceived messages about bone health after a fracture are not consistent across healthcare providers

To examine messages perceived by members of an osteoporosis (OP) patient group from various healthcare providers regarding bone health. We conducted a phenomenological (qualitative) study in members of an OP patient group who resided in Canada, had sustained a fragility fracture at 50+ years old, and were not taking antiresorptive medication at the time of that fracture. Participants were interviewed for approximately 1 h by telephone and responded to questions about visits to healthcare providers for their bone health and what was discussed during those visits. We analyzed the data guided by Giorgi’s methodology. We interviewed 28 members (2 males, 26 females; 78 % response rate), aged 51–89 years old. Most participants perceived that their specialist was more interested than their primary care physician in bone health and took the time to discuss issues with them. Participants perceived very few messages from the fracture clinic and other providers. We found many instances where perceived messages within and across various healthcare providers were inconsistent, suggesting there is a need to raise awareness of bone health management guidelines to providers who treat fracture patients.

Comparison of CAROC and FRAX in Fragility Fracture Patients: Agreement, Clinical Utility, and Implications for Clinical Practice

Objective. To examine the level of agreement between 2 fracture risk assessment tools [Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) and Canadian Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX)] when applied within the context of the Canadian guidelines, in a population of fragility fracture patients. Methods. The sample consisted of 135 treatment-naive fragility fracture patients aged 50+ years and screened as part of an osteoporosis (OP) program at an urban hospital. Ten-year probabilities of future major osteoporotic fractures were calculated using the FRAX and CAROC. We also integrated additional qualifiers from the 2010 Canadian guidelines that place hip, spine, and multiple fractures at high risk regardless. A quadratic weighted κ (Kw) and 95% CI were calculated to estimate the chance corrected agreement between the risk assessment tools. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with concordance. Results. Among patients with fragility fractures, the agreement between CAROC and FRAX was Kw = 0.64 (95% CI 0.58–0.71), with 45 of 135 cases in the cells reflecting disagreement. Younger persons and males were more likely to be found in discordant cells. Conclusion. The level of agreement between 2 commonly used fracture risk assessment tools was not as high in the patients with fragility fractures as it was in general community-based samples. Our results suggest discordance is found in less-typical patients with OP who need more consistency in messaging and direction. Users of these fracture risk tools should be aware of the potential for discordance and note differences in risk classifications that may affect treatment decisions.

Medication initiation rates are not directly comparable across secondary fracture prevention programs: reporting standards based on a systematic review

OBJECTIVE To examine the methods used to calculate the reported medication initiation rates in secondary fracture prevention programs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A systematic review was conducted on postfracture interventions that aimed to improve osteoporosis management in an orthopedic environment. Two authors independently reviewed eligible articles to determine the numerator and denominator used to calculate the rates of antiresorptive medication initiation based on author reports. In interventions with numerator and denominator combinations that appeared to be comparable, we examined the inclusion and exclusion criteria to confirm comparability. RESULTS Fifty-seven articles reporting on 64 interventions were eligible for the review. A total of 28 different combinations of numerators and denominators to calculate rates were reported for medication initiation across 49 of the 64 interventions. After examining the inclusion and exclusion criteria for rates that appeared to be comparable, the highest number of interventions with a comparable rate was 3. CONCLUSION Reporting processes for antiresorptive medication initiation outcomes in secondary fracture prevention programs used heterogeneous standards that prevented useful comparison of programs. Applying different numerator and denominator combinations meant that the same observed number of patients could have resulted in different reported rates. We propose standards for reporting medication initiation rates in such programs.