Search

We examined international osteoporosis guidelines to determine the tools used to assess fracture risk, the classification of fracture risk presented, and the recommendations based on fracture risk status. We conducted a document analysis of guidelines from the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) website retrieved as of May 10, 2018, focusing on guidelines written in English only. Two reviewers independently reviewed each document and the following data were extracted: (1) fracture risk tool(s) endorsed; (2) classification system used to describe fracture risk status (e.g., low, moderate, high); and (3) recommendations based on risk status (e.g., pharmacological treatment). Two additional reviewers verified all data extraction. A total of 112 guidelines were listed on the IOF website, of which 94 were located either through the provided link or through a PubMed search. Of 70 guidelines written in English, 63 guidelines discussed the concept of fracture risk of which, 39 endorsed FRAX. Twenty-eight guidelines defined fracture risk categories or thresholds which determined recommendations. In total, 26 provided a risk category or threshold which constituted an indication for pharmacotherapy. Twelve guidelines reported a moderate, medium, or intermediate risk category which was associated with variable recommendations for testing and treatment. Despite the generally accepted international shift to fracture risk as a basis for treatment decisions, the majority of guidelines in English did not provide treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status. In guidelines with recommendations based on fracture risk status, thresholds and recommendations varied making international comparisons of treatment difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "Perceived messages about bone health after a fracture are not consistent across healthcare providers" published in the July 25, 2014 issue of the periodical is presented.