Search

Background: The Fracture Screening and Prevention Program (FSPP), a fracture liaison service (FLS), was implemented in the province of Ontario, Canada, in 2007 to prevent recurrent fragility fractures and to improve post-fracture care. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the current model of the FSPP compared with usual care (no program) from the perspective of the universal public health-care payer (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [MOHLTC]), over the lifetime of older adults who presented with a fragility fracture of the proximal part of the femur, the proximal part of the humerus, or the distal part of the radius and were not taking medications to prevent or slow bone loss and reduce the risk of fracture (bone active medications).Methods: We developed a state-transition (Markov) model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the FSPP in comparison with usual care. The model simulated a cohort of patients with a fragility fracture starting at 71 years of age. Model parameters were obtained from published literature and from the FSPP. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2018 Canadian dollars were predicted over a lifetime horizon using a 1.5% annual discount rate. Health outcomes included subsequent proximal femoral, vertebral, proximal humeral, and distal radial fractures. Scenario and subgroup analyses were reported.Results: The FSPP had lower expected costs ($277 less) and higher expected effectiveness (by 0.018 QALY) than usual care over the lifetime horizon. Ninety-four percent of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) demonstrated lower costs and higher effectiveness of the FSPP.Conclusions: The FSPP appears to be cost-effective compared with usual care over a lifetime for patients with fragility fracture. This information may help to quantify the value of the FSPP and to assist policy-makers in deciding whether to expand the FSPP to additional hospitals or to initiate similar programs where none exist.Level Of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Given the asymptomatic nature of osteoporosis, a fragility fracture provides an opportunity to make the issue of osteoporosis relevant to patients. Patients who link their fragility fracture with osteoporosis are more likely to initiate osteoporosis treatment, yet to date, we know little about who is likely to make this link. This study examined whether demographic, health, and osteoporosis belief factors predicted a perceived link between a fragility fracture and osteoporosis. Study design: This longitudinal cohort study analyzed baseline and follow up data collected as part of a provincial osteoporosis screening initiative targeting fragility fracture patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between hypothesized predictors and the outcome. Main outcome measure: Patient perception of the osteoporosis–fracture link at follow up. Results: At baseline, 93% (1615/1735) of patients did not believe their fracture could have been caused by osteoporosis. Of these, only 8.2% changed this perception at follow up. Adjusted analyses showed that baseline characteristics associated with making the osteoporosis–fracture link at follow up were: a previous fracture (odds ratio (OR) 1.7, confidence interval (CI) 1.2–2.6), perception of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy benefits OR 1.2 (CI 1.0–1.5), diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis OR 2.6 (CI 1.4–4.9) and the perception of bones as “thin” OR 8.2 (CI 5.1–13.1). Conclusion: These results shed more light on patient-level barriers to osteoporosis management following an osteoporosis educational programme. They may be used to identify patients less likely to make the link between their fracture and osteoporosis and to inform interventions for this patient group. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: We sought to report the prevalence of fragility fracture patients who were screened at high falls risk using a large provincial database, and to determine the characteristics associated with being screened at high falls risk.Methods: The study population included fragility fracture patients 50+ years of age who were screened at 35 hospital fracture clinics in Ontario over a 3.5 year period. The outcome was based on two screening questions measuring the risk of falling, both adapted from the STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths & Injuries) tool. Multivariable associations of sociodemographic, fracture-related, and health-related characteristics were evaluated using logistic regression.Results: Of the sample, 9735 (44.5%) patients were classified as being at high falls risk, and 12,089 (55.3%) were not. In the multivariable logistic regression, being 80+ years of age (vs. 50-64 years of age), non-community dwelling (vs. living with spouse, family member, roommate), having a mental/physical impairment (vs. none), and taking multiple medications, were all strongly associated with being screened at high falls risk.Conclusions: Living in a non-community dwelling and taking 4+ medications were the variables most strongly associated with being screened at high falls risk. These are potentially modifiable characteristics that should be considered when assessing falls risk in fragility fracture patients, and particularly when designing interventions for preventing subsequent falls. Ongoing work to address the higher risk of falls in the fragility fracture population is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Behaviour change models suggest that people need clear information about their susceptibility to disease and knowledge of treatment recommendations in order to change their behaviour. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine fracture patients' understanding of osteoporosis (OP) and OP care after being screened for, and educated about, OP in a fracture clinic. Methods We conducted five focus groups with 24 patients (18 women, six men) aged 47–80 years old who were screened for OP through an urban fracture clinic. Participants were asked about their awareness of OP and their status of bone mineral density (BMD) testing and OP treatment. Results Twenty participants vocalized at least one expression of ambiguity regarding OP and/or treatment recommendations conveyed by the screening programme staff. Participants were ambiguous about the cause of their fracture, the BMD test process and results, and the presentation of OP. They were also ambiguous about the amount and type of medication and supplements recommended. Conclusions Despite a standardized screening programme in which OP was addressed in fragility fracture patients, ambiguity about diagnosis, testing and treatment were described. Efforts to clarify information relayed to fracture patients about their condition and recommended care need to extend beyond the fracture clinic so that health care providers can promote long-term adherence to these recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]