Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 25 July 2014

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Saadi H, Liktaker D, Mills W, Kippes C, Richmond B, Licata A (1999) Practice variation in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis: a case for more effective physician education in primary care. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 8(6):767–771

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buckley LM, Marquez M, Hudson JO, Downs RW, Vacek P, Small RE et al (1998) Variations in physicians’ judgments about corticosteroid induced osteoporosis by physician specialty. J Rheumatol 25:2195–2202

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sale JEM, Beaton D, Fraenkel L, Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch E (2010) The BMD muddle: the disconnect between bone densitometry results and perception of bone health. J Clin Densitom 13(4):370–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sale J, Gignac M, Hawker G, Frankel L, Beaton D, Bogoch E et al (2011) Decision to take osteoporosis medication in patients who have had a fracture and are ‘high’ risk for future fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:92

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M (2004) Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res 39(4 Pt 1):1005–1026

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kristjansson E, Tugwell PS, Wilson AJ, Brooks PM, Driedger SM, Gallois C et al (2007) Development of the effective musculoskeletal consumer scale. J Rheumatol 34(6):1392–1400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Giorgi A (1989) Some theoretical and practical issues regarding the psychological phenomenological method. Saybrook Rev 7:71–85

    Google Scholar 

  8. Giorgi A (1997) The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. J Phenomenol Psychol 28:235–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Giorgi A (2008) Concerning a serious misunderstanding of the essence of the phenomenological method in psychology. J Phenomenol Psychol 39:33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wertz FJ (2005) Phenomenological research methods for counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol 52(2):167–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gearing RE (2004) Bracketing in research: a typology. Qual Health Res 14(10):1429–1452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kvale S (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nvivo [computer program]. Victoria, Australia: Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd.; 2010

  14. Kvale S, Brinkmann S (2009) Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, 2nd edn. Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cicutto LC, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Geerts WH (2000) The management of asthma: a case-scenario-based survey of family physicians and pulmonary specialists. J Asthma 37(3):235–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jaakkola E (2007) Physicians’ views on the influence of patient participation on treatment decisions: an exploratory study. Health Serv Manag Res 20:174–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Douglas F, Petrie KJ, Cundy T, Horne A, Gamble G, Grey A (2012) Differing perceptions of intervention thresholds for fracture risk: a survey of patients and doctors. Osteoporos Int 23:2135–2140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosser WW (1996) Approach to diagnosis by primary care clinicians and specialists: is there a difference? J Fam Pract 42(2):139–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C et al (2005) Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases. JAMA 294(6):716–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thorne SE, Nyhlin KT, Paterson BL (2000) Attitudes toward patient expertise in chronic illness. Int J Nurs Stud 37:303–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Papaioannou A, Leslie WD, Morin S, Atkinson S, Brown J, Cheung AM et al (2010) 2010 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 182(17):1864–1873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA, O’Brien MD, Tink W (2007) The importance of communication in secondary fragility fracture treatment and prevention. Osteoporos Int 18:159–166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heisler M, Bouknight RR, Hayward RA, Smith DM, Kerr EA et al (2002) The relative importance of physician communication, participatory decision making, and patient understanding in diabetes self-management. J Gen Intern Med 17:243–252

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Heisler M, Cole I, Weir D, Kerr EA, Hayward RA (2007) Does physician communication influence older patients’ diabetes self-management and glycemic control? Results from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). J Gerontol Med Sci 62A(12):1435–1442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sale JEM, Beaton DE, Sujic R, Bogoch ER (2010) “If it was osteoporosis, I would have really hurt myself”. Ambiguity about osteoporosis and osteoporosis care despite a screening program to educate fracture patients. J Eval Clin Pract 16(3):590–596

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Makoul G, Arntson P, Schofield T (1995) Health promotion in primary care: physician patient communication and decision making about prescription medications. Soc Sci Med 41(9):1241–1254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CBO-109629). Joanna Sale was in part, funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, OP Strategy. Views expressed are those of the researchers and not the Ministry.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no potential, perceived, or real conflict of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mobility Program Clinical Research Unit, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Joanna E. M. Sale, Cathy Cameron & Dorcas Beaton

  2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Suite 425 – 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada

    Joanna E. M. Sale, Gillian Hawker & Dorcas Beaton

  3. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Suite RFE 3-805, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada

    Gillian Hawker

  4. Osteoporosis Research Program, Women’s College Hospital, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 1B1, Canada

    Gillian Hawker

  5. Mobility Program, St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Earl Bogoch

  6. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, 149 College Street, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P5, Canada

    Earl Bogoch

  7. Osteoporosis Canada, 1090 Don Mills Road, Suite 301, Toronto, ON, M3C 3R6, Canada

    Ravi Jain & Larry Funnell

  8. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 160 – 500 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada

    Susan Jaglal

Authors
  1. Joanna E. M. Sale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gillian Hawker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cathy Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Earl Bogoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ravi Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dorcas Beaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Susan Jaglal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Larry Funnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna E. M. Sale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sale, J.E.M., Hawker, G., Cameron, C. et al. Perceived messages about bone health after a fracture are not consistent across healthcare providers. Rheumatol Int 35, 97–103 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-014-3079-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-014-3079-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation