Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Awareness of osteoporosis, risk and protective factors and own diagnostic status: a cross-sectional study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Osteoporosis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

We conducted a cross-sectional study of the understanding on osteoporosis amongst community-dwelling geriatric patients. Patient understanding on the pathology, risk factors and its complications was suboptimal, but better amongst women and persons with diagnosed osteoporosis. Improving patient osteoporosis education may lead to improved compliance with preventive and therapeutic measures.

Purpose

Osteoporosis is often preventable and treatable. Establishing levels of understanding in an Irish population will help inform future public and patient education.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 126 randomly selected geriatric day hospital patients, interviewing next of kin where abbreviated mental test score was <6. Questions assessed awareness of (1) basic pathology, (2) predisposing and protective factors, (3) complications and (4) personal osteoporosis status and treatment.

Results

Participants included 103 patients and 23 carers; 78.6 % were female; patients’ mean age was 81.6 years. Of the patients surveyed, 87.3 % had heard of osteoporosis; 56.1 % knew affected bone; and 30.2 % were cognisant of architectural change. About 65.9 % reported that a doctor had never discussed the condition; 92.9 % correctly identified whether diagnosed with osteoporosis, and >96 % correctly identified their treatment status. Rates of risk factor identification were as follows: 88.9 % for ageing, 83.8 % female gender, 65.1 % smoking, 62.4 % low BMI and 51.6 % alcohol excess; <10 % identified other risk factors. Awareness of complications ranged from 91.3 % for fractures to 44.4 % for height loss. Awareness of protective factors (calcium/vitamin D-rich food, medication and exercise) was >85 % for each. More women had heard of osteoporosis (p = 0.02), knew affected bone (p = 0.005) and recognised gender as a risk factor (p = 0.015) and pain (p = 0.05) or kyphosis (p = 0.014) as complications. Osteoporotic patients (N = 38) were more likely to know it as affected bone (p = 0.006). Amongst patients surveyed [abbreviated mental test score (AMTS) 6–10], AMTS score did not predict understanding. Age did not predict understanding, nor were next of kin more likely to understand osteoporosis than patients.

Conclusion

There is scope for enhancing patient osteoporosis education, which may improve compliance with preventive and therapeutic measures.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baum E, Peters KM (2008) The diagnosis and treatment of primary osteoporosis according to current guidelines. Dtsch Arztebl Int 105:573–582

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Central Statistics Office. Ageing in Ireland (2007) Central Statistics Office, Dublin: 2007, page 11. http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/othercsopublications/ageinginireland2007/. Accessed 14 Sep 2012

  3. Gannon B, O’Shea E, Hudson E (2007) The economic costs of falls and fractures in people aged 65 and over in Ireland. Technical report to NCAOP/HSE/DOHC. http://www.cardi.ie/publications/theeconomiccostsoffallsandfracturesinpeopleaged65andoverinirelandtechnicalreporttoncaop/. Accessed 14 Sep 2012

  4. Central Statistics Office. Health status and health service utilisation. Quarterly National Household Survey, Third Quarter, 2010. Central Statistics Office, Dublin: 2011, page 13. http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2010/healthstatusq32010.pdf. Accessed 14 Sep 2012

  5. Phillipov G, Phillips PJ, Leach G, Taylor AW (1998) Public perceptions and self-reported prevalence of osteoporosis in South Australia. Osteoporos Int 8:552–556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salked G, Cameron ID, Cumming RG et al (2000) Quality of life related to fear of falling and hip fracture in older women: a time trade off study. Br Med J 320:341–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cotter PE, Timmons S, O’Connor M, Twomey C, O’Mahony D (2006) The financial implications of falls in older people for an acute hospital. Ir J Med Sci 175(2):11–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crandall CJ, Newberry SJ, Diamont A, et al. (2012) Treatment to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density of osteoporosis: update of a 2007 report. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); Rockville, MD, USA. Report no. 12-EHC023-EF

  9. Lewiecki EM (2008) Denosumab: an investigational drug for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Biologics 2:643–653

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rizzoli R, Brandi ML, Dreinhöfer K et al (2010) The gaps between patient and physician understanding of the emotional and physical impact of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos 5:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cranney A, O’Connor AM, Jacobson MJ et al (2002) Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for post-menopausal women with osteoporosis. Patient Educ Couns 47:245–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yood RA, Mazor KM, Andrade SE, Emani S, Chan W, Kahler KH (2008) Patient decision to initiate therapy for osteoporosis: the influence of knowledge and beliefs. J Gen Intern Med 23(11):1815–1821

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Warriner AH, Curtis JR (2009) Adherence to osteoporosis treatments: room for improvement. Curr Opin Rheumatol 21(4):356–362

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Satterfield T, Johnson SM, Slovic P, Neil N, Schein JR (2001) Perceived risks and reported behaviours associated with osteoporosis and its treatment. Women Health 31:21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Drozdzowska B, Pluskiewicz W, Skiba M (2004) Knowledge about osteoporosis in a cohort of Polish females. Osteoporos Int 15:645–648

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kasper MJ, Peterson MGE, Allegrante JP, Galsworthy TG, Gutin B (1994) Knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors among college women concerning the prevention of osteoporosis. Arch Fam Med 3:696–702

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Matthews HL, Laya M, De Witt DE (2006) Rural women and osteoporosis: awareness and educational needs. J Rural Health 22(3):279–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Magnus JH, Joakimsen RM, Berntsen GK, Tollan A, Sogaard AJ (1996) What do Norwegian women and men know about osteoporosis? Osteoporos Int 6:31–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Juby AG, Davis P (201) A prospective evaluation of the awareness, knowledge, risk factors and current treatment of osteoporosis in a cohort of elderly subjects. Osteoporos Int 12: 617–622

    Google Scholar 

  20. Terrio K, Auld GW (2002) Osteoporosis knowledge, calcium intake, and weight-bearing physical activity in three age groups of women. J Community Health 27(5):307–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kutsal YG, Atalay A, Basaran SAA et al (2005) Awareness of osteoporotic patients. Osteoporos Int 16:128–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pickney CS, Arnason JA (2005) Correlation between patient recall of bone densitometry results and subsequent treatment adherence. Osteoporos Int 16:1156–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Blalock SJ (2005) Towards a better understanding of calcium intake: behavioural change perspectives. J Reprod Med 50(11 Suppl):901–906

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Blalock SJ, Currey SS, De Vellis RF et al (2000) Effects of educational materials concerning osteoporosis on women’s knowledge, beliefs, and behavior. Am J Health Promot 14(3):161–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cook B, Noteloviz M, Rector C, Krishcher JP (1991) An osteoporosis patients education and screening program: results and implications. Patient Educ Couns 17(2):135–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Solomon DH, Finkelstein JS, Polinski JM et al (2006) A randomised controlled trial of mailed osteoporosis education to older adults. Osteoporos Int 17:760–767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guilera M, Fuentes M, Grifols M et al (2006) Does an educational leaflet improve self-reported adherence to therapy in osteoporosis? the OPTIMA study. Osteoporos Int 17:664–671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. International Osteoporosis Foundation. The eight recommendations from the European Commission (1998). http://testsite.iofbonehealth.org/docs/policy-advocacy/europe/european-union-initiatives/eight-recommendations.html. Accessed 27 Sep 2012

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants who kindly took part in this study.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont, Dublin 11, Ireland

    Danielle Ní Chróinín

  2. Charleville Family Practice, Charleville, Co. Cork, Ireland

    Patricia Glavin

  3. Department of Medicine for the Older Person, St. Mary’s Hospital, Dublin 20, Ireland

    Dermot Power

  4. Department of Medicine for the Older Person, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin 7, Ireland

    Dermot Power

Authors
  1. Danielle Ní Chróinín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricia Glavin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dermot Power
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle Ní Chróinín.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ní Chróinín, D., Glavin, P. & Power, D. Awareness of osteoporosis, risk and protective factors and own diagnostic status: a cross-sectional study. Arch Osteoporos 8, 117 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-012-0117-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-012-0117-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation