Advertisement

Barriers and Expectations for Patients in Post-Osteoporotic Fracture Care in France: The EFFEL Study

Published:November 25, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.005

      Highlights

      • A large gap between real-world care of osteoporotic fractures and practice guidelines has been demonstrated. Although many reasons for this have been proposed, their relative importance is unknown.
      • This study identified potential barriers to care and expectations for care in individuals who had experienced osteoporotic fractures using a qualitative approach and then went on to rank these barriers and expectations in terms of importance to the patient using a best-worst scaling approach. This allowed the most important barriers to better care of patients with osteoporotic fractures to be identified.
      • The 2 most important barriers are a lack of patient information about osteoporosis and inadequate coordination of care. Strategies to overcome these barriers are proposed. Different patient groups have different perceptions and expectations and these need to be taken into account when implementing these strategies.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      This study aimed to quantify the relative importance of barriers to better secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures and of care expectations expressed by patients with osteoporotic fractures in France.

      Methods

      A qualitative exploration of potential barriers to care and expectations was undertaken through a systematic literature review and in-depth patients interviews. A list of 21 barriers and 21 expectations was identified. These were presented to 324 subjects with osteoporotic fractures, identified in a representative sample of the French population, in the form of best-worst scaling questionnaires. Patients rated the relative importance of the attributes, and arithmetic mean importance scores were calculated and ranked. A Bayesian hierarchical model was also performed to generate a relative importance score. Latent class analysis was performed to identify potential subgroups of patients with different response profiles.

      Results

      A total of 7 barriers were rated as the most important, relating to awareness of osteoporosis and coordination of care. The highest-ranked barrier, “my fracture is not related to osteoporosis,” was significantly more important than all the others (mean importance score 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.56). A similar ranking of attributes was obtained with both the arithmetic and the Bayesian approach. For expectations, no clear hierarchy of attributes was identified. Latent class analysis discriminated 3 classes of respondents with significant differences in response profiles (the educated environmentalists, the unaware, and the victims of the system).

      Conclusions

      Better quality of care of osteoporosis and effective secondary fracture prevention will require improvements in patient education, training of healthcare professionals, and coordination of care.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Value in Health
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Eliasaf A.
        • Amitai A.
        • Maram Edry M.
        • Yosselson Superstine S.
        • Rotman Pikielny P.
        Compliance, persistence, and preferences regarding osteoporosis treatment during active therapy or drug holiday.
        J Clin Pharmacol. 2016; 56: 1416-1422
        • Malle O.
        • Borgstroem F.
        • Fahrleitner-Pammer A.
        • Svedbom A.
        • Dimai S.V.
        • Dimai H.P.
        Mind the gap: incidence of osteoporosis treatment after an osteoporotic fracture - results of the Austrian branch of the International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS).
        Bone. 2021; 142115071
        • Cheung M.Y.
        • Ho A.W.
        • Wong S.H.
        Post-fracture care gap: a retrospective population-based analysis of Hong Kong from 2009 to 2012.
        Hong Kong Med J. 2018; 24: 579-583
        • Prieto-Alhambra D.
        • Reyes C.
        • Sainz M.S.
        • et al.
        In-hospital care, complications, and 4-month mortality following a hip or proximal femur fracture: the Spanish registry of osteoporotic femur fractures prospective cohort study.
        Arch Osteoporos. 2018; 13: 96
        • Leslie W.D.
        • Giangregorio L.M.
        • Yogendran M.
        • et al.
        A population-based analysis of the post-fracture care gap 1996-2008: the situation is not improving.
        Osteoporos Int. 2012; 23: 1623-1629
        • Barton D.W.
        • Behrend C.J.
        • Carmouche J.J.
        Rates of osteoporosis screening and treatment following vertebral fracture.
        Spine J. 2019; 19: 411-417
        • Mendis A.S.
        • Ganda K.
        • Seibel M.J.
        Barriers to secondary fracture prevention in primary care.
        Osteoporos Int. 2017; 28: 2913-2919
        • Kanis J.A.
        • Johnell O.
        • De Laet C.
        • et al.
        A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk.
        Bone. 2004; 35: 375-382
        • Klotzbuecher C.M.
        • Ross P.D.
        • Landsman P.B.
        • Abbott 3rd, T.A.
        • Berger M.
        Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis.
        J Bone Miner Res. 2000; 15: 721-739
        • Leboime A.
        • Confavreux C.B.
        • Mehsen N.
        • Paccou J.
        • David C.
        • Roux C.
        Osteoporosis and mortality.
        Joint Bone Spine. 2010; 77: S107-S112
        • Teng G.G.
        • Curtis J.R.
        • Saag K.G.
        Mortality and osteoporotic fractures: is the link causal, and is it modifiable?.
        Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008; 26: S125-S137
        • Center J.R.
        Fracture burden: what two and a half decades of Dubbo osteoporosis epidemiology study data reveal about clinical outcomes of osteoporosis.
        Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2017; 15: 88-95
        • Kanis J.A.
        • Burlet N.
        • Cooper C.
        • et al.
        European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women [published correction appears in Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(7):1103-1104.].
        Osteoporos Int. 2008; 19: 399-428
        • Harvey N.C.
        • McCloskey E.V.
        • Mitchell P.J.
        • et al.
        Mind the (treatment) gap: a global perspective on current and future strategies for prevention of fragility fractures.
        Osteoporos Int. 2017; 28: 1507-1529
        • Vaculik J.
        • Stepan J.J.
        • Dungl P.
        • Majerníček M.
        • Čelko A.
        • Džupa V.
        Secondary fracture prevention in hip fracture patients requires cooperation from general practitioners.
        Arch Osteoporos. 2017; 12: 49
        • Briot K.
        Fracture liaison services.
        Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2017; 29: 416-421
        • Barton D.W.
        • Griffin D.C.
        • Carmouche J.J.
        Orthopedic surgeons’ views on the osteoporosis care gap and potential solutions: survey results.
        J Orthop Surg Res. 2019; 14: 72
        • Simonelli C.
        • Killeen K.
        • Mehle S.
        • Swanson L.
        Barriers to osteoporosis identification and treatment among primary care physicians and orthopedic surgeons.
        Mayo Clin Proc. 2002; 77: 334-338
        • Sorbi R.
        • Aghamirsalim M.
        Osteoporotic Fracture Program management: who should be in charge? A comparative survey of knowledge in orthopaedic surgeons and internists.
        Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013; 99: 723-730
        • Sale J.E.
        • Bogoch E.
        • Hawker G.
        • et al.
        Patient perceptions of provider barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention.
        Osteoporos Int. 2014; 25: 2581-2589
        • Lewiecki E.M.
        • Leader D.
        • Weiss R.
        • Williams S.A.
        Challenges in osteoporosis awareness and management: results from a survey of US postmenopausal women.
        J Drug Assess. 2019; 8: 25-31
        • Louviere J.J.
        • Woodworth G.G.
        Best-Worst Scaling: a model for largest difference judgments [Working Paper].
        Faculty of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada1990
        • Marley A.A.
        • Louviere J.J.
        Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices.
        J Math Psychol. 2005; 49: 446-480
        • Flynn T.N.
        • Louviere J.J.
        • Peters T.J.
        • Coast J.
        Best--worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it.
        J Health Econ. 2007; 26: 171-189
        • Thurstone L.L.
        A law of comparative judgment.
        Psychol Rev. 1927; 34: 273-286
        • McFadden D.L.
        Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior.
        in: Zarembka P. Frontiers in Econometrics. Wiley, New York, NY1973: 105-142
        • Coast J.
        • Flynn T.N.
        • Natarajan L.
        • et al.
        Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people.
        Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67: 874-882
        • Coast J.
        • Al-Janabi H.
        • Sutton E.J.
        • et al.
        Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations.
        Health Econ. 2012; 21: 730-741
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.J.
        • PRISMA Group
        Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        BMJ. 2009; 339: b2535
        • Alami S.
        • Hervouet L.
        • Poiraudeau S.
        • Briot K.
        • Roux C.
        Barriers to effective postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment: a qualitative study of patients’ and practitioners’ views.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0158365
        • Hiligsmann M.
        • Dellaert B.G.
        • Dirksen C.D.
        • et al.
        Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment.
        Rheumatolology (Oxford). 2017; 56: 1167-1176
        • Coast J.
        • Horrocks S.
        Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods.
        J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007; 12: 25-30
        • Vermunt J.K.
        Latent class modeling with covariates: two improved three-step approaches.
        Polit Anal. 2010; 18: 450-469
        • Cortet B.
        • Chauvin P.
        • Feron J.M.
        • et al.
        Fragility fractures in France: epidemiology, characteristics and quality of life (the EPIFRACT study).
        Arch Osteoporos. 2020; 15: 46
        • Bliuc D.
        • Nguyen N.D.
        • Milch V.E.
        • Nguyen T.V.
        • Eisman J.A.
        • Center J.R.
        Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women.
        JAMA. 2009; 301: 513-521
        • Flynn T.N.
        Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010; 10: 259-267
        • Muhlbacher A.C.
        • Kaczynski A.
        • Zweifel P.
        • Johnson F.R.
        Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview.
        Health Econ Rev. 2016; 6: 2
        • Cheung K.L.
        • Mayer S.
        • Simon J.
        • et al.
        Comparison of statistical analysis methods for object case best-worst scaling.
        J Med Econ. 2019; 22: 509-515
        • Clogg C.C.
        Latent class models.
        in: Arminger G. Clogg C.C. Sobel M.E. Handbook of Statistical Modeling for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Springer, Boston, MA1995: 311-359
        • Meghani S.H.
        • Lee C.S.
        • Hanlon A.L.
        • Bruner D.W.
        Latent class cluster analysis to understand heterogeneity in prostate cancer treatment utilities.
        BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009; 9: 47
        • Yood R.A.
        • Mazor K.M.
        • Andrade S.E.
        • Emani S.
        • Chan W.
        • Kahler K.H.
        Patient decision to initiate therapy for osteoporosis: the influence of knowledge and beliefs.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23: 1815-1821
        • Mazor K.M.
        • Velten S.
        • Andrade S.E.
        • Yood R.A.
        Older women’s views about prescription osteoporosis medication: a cross-sectional, qualitative study.
        Drugs Aging. 2010; 27: 999-1008
        • Sale J.E.
        • Gignac M.A.
        • Hawker G.
        • et al.
        Patients do not have a consistent understanding of high risk for future fracture: a qualitative study of patients from a post-fracture secondary prevention program.
        Osteoporos Int. 2016; 27: 65-73
        • Sale J.E.
        • Gignac M.A.
        • Hawker G.
        • et al.
        Decision to take osteoporosis medication in patients who have had a fracture and are ‘high’ risk for future fracture: a qualitative study.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12: 92
        • Doyle C.
        • Lennox L.
        • Bell D.
        A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness.
        BMJ Open. 2013; 3e001570
        • Akesson K.
        • Marsh D.
        • Mitchell P.J.
        • et al.
        Capture the Fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle.
        Osteoporos Int. 2013; 24: 2135-2152
        • Alamri S.H.
        • Kennedy C.C.
        • Marr S.
        • Lohfeld L.
        • Skidmore C.J.
        • Papaioannou A.
        Strategies to overcome barriers to implementing osteoporosis and fracture prevention guidelines in long-term care: a qualitative analysis of action plans suggested by front line staff in Ontario, Canada.
        BMC Geriatr. 2015; 15: 94
        • Chou L.
        • Shamdasani P.
        • Briggs A.M.
        • et al.
        Systematic scoping review of patients’ perceived needs of health services for osteoporosis.
        Osteoporos Int. 2017; 28: 3077-3098
        • Roh Y.H.
        • Lee E.S.
        • Ahn J.
        • et al.
        Factors affecting willingness to get assessed and treated for osteoporosis.
        Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30: 1395-1401
        • Merle B.
        • Dupraz C.
        • Haesebaert J.
        • et al.
        Osteoporosis prevention: where are the barriers to improvement in a French general population? A qualitative study.
        Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30: 177-185
        • Merle B.
        • Haesebaert J.
        • Bedouet A.
        • et al.
        Osteoporosis prevention: where are the barriers to improvement in French general practitioners? A qualitative study.
        PLoS One. 2019; 14e0219681
        • Boudreau D.M.
        • Yu O.
        • Balasubramanian A.
        • et al.
        A survey of women’s awareness of and reasons for lack of postfracture osteoporotic care.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017; 65: 1829-1835
        • Feldstein A.C.
        • Schneider J.
        • Smith D.H.
        • et al.
        Harnessing stakeholder perspectives to improve the care of osteoporosis after a fracture.
        Osteoporos Int. 2008; 19: 1527-1540
        • Meadows L.M.
        • Mrkonjic L.A.
        • O’Brien M.D.
        • Tink W.
        The importance of communication in secondary fragility fracture treatment and prevention.
        Osteoporos Int. 2007; 18: 159-166
        • Tan E.K.
        • Loh K.P.
        • Goff S.L.
        Internal medicine hospitalists’ perceived barriers and recommendations for optimizing secondary prevention of osteoporotic hip fractures.
        South Med J. 2017; 110: 749-753
        • Palinkas L.A.
        • Aarons G.A.
        • Horwitz S.
        • Chamberlain P.
        • Hurlburt M.
        • Landsverk J.
        Mixed method designs in implementation research.
        Admin Policy Ment Health. 2011; 38: 44-53
        • Pluye P.
        • Hong Q.N.
        Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews.
        Annu Rev Public Health. 2014; 35: 29-45