Advertisement

Understanding Patients’ Perspectives and Educational Needs by Type of Osteoporosis in Men and Women and People with Glucocorticosteroid-Induced Osteoporosis: A Qualitative Study to Improve Disease Management

  • Catherine BeauvaisEmail author
  • Didier Poivret
  • Eric Lespessailles
  • Corinne Thevenot
  • Dominique Aubraye
  • Liana Euller Ziegler
  • Martine Beranger
  • Edith Filaire
  • Sophie Gendarme
  • Karine Legrand
  • Yves Magar
  • Mickael Rousière
  • Florence Lévy-Weil
  • Bernard Cortet
  • Anne Christine Rat
  • SOLID’OS Working Group
Original Research
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate similarities and differences in health beliefs, experiences and educational needs by type of osteoporosis (OP), particularly in people with glucocorticoid-induced OP (GIOP) and men. A qualitative study was conducted via focus groups involving post-menopausal women with or without osteoporotic fractures, osteoporotic men and people with GIOP. Fifty-three participants were included in eight groups. A wide range of health beliefs was found for all types of OP. Osteoporosis was considered a natural consequence of ageing except in men or conversely a serious disease associated with risk of new fractures and disability. GIOP patients had heterogeneous knowledge of OP and reported fewer prevention behaviours, and their quality of life was affected by the causal illness. Men had difficulties coping with the loss of their functional abilities and felt that OP was a “women’s” disease. Beliefs about treatments ranged from confidence to fear of adverse effects or doubt about efficacy in all types of OP. Participants were interested in physical activity, fall prevention and diet, and preferred group sessions. GIOP patients and men had an interest in face-to-face education. Men were also interested in brief information including via the Internet. Patients’ beliefs about OP differed by type of OP. Specific populations such as men or people with GIOP need particular care owing to experiences and needs. Offering group sessions in educational interventions is of interest to allow for sharing experiences and also face-to-face education for men and GIOP patients or the Internet for men.

Keywords

Post-menopausal osteoporosis Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis Male Qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients who participated in the study and all members of the SOLID’OS group.

Members of the SOLID’OS group: rheumatologists: C. Beauvais, B. Cortet, L. Euller Ziegler, E. Lespessailles, F. Levy Weil, D.Poivret, AC Rat, M. Rousière, C. Thévenot, P. Grandhaye; Nurses: D. Aubraye, M. Beranger, F. Nominé; patients association: AFLAR: C. Cardon, L. Carton; occupational therapist: N. Dechassat; dietician: A.Hector.

Author Contributions

CB and ACR designed the study, analysed the data and prepared the first and final draft of the paper. They are guarantors. Authors DP, EL, CT, LEZ and MB and FL-W participated in the study design and protocol. Authors DP, EL, CT, LEZ, MR, BC and ACR contributed to the experimental work by selecting patients and collecting data. Authors SG, KL, YM performed the interviews and qualitative analysis. BC reviewed the first and final draft of the paper. All authors revised the paper critically for intellectual content and approved the final version. All authors agree to be accountable for the work and to ensure that any questions relating to the accuracy and integrity of the paper are investigated and properly resolved.

Funding

This study was funded by the French Society of Rheumatology (SFR). The SFR received an unrestricted institutional grant from Amgen and Lilly for research in the field of osteoporosis and education. Lilly and Amgen were informed that part of the funding would be allocated to this study. Lilly and Amgen did not intervene in the choice of the study’s subject, design, data collection or decision to publish. The grant was used to pay the researchers. All other authors did not receive any honoraria for this study and have no disclosure of interest.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Catherine Beauvais, Didier Poivret, Eric Lespessailles, Yves Magar, Corinne Thevenot, Liana Euller Ziegler, Sophie Gendarme, Karine Legrand, Edith Filaire, Dominique Aubraye, Martine Beranger, Mickael Rousière, Florence Lévy-Weil, Bernard Cortet, Anne Christine Rat declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

Participants were informed of the study objectives and schedule of the study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study according to local recommendations on research involving human participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Wade SW, Strader C, Fitzpatrick LA et al (2014) Estimating prevalence of osteoporosis: examples from industrialized countries. Arch Osteoporos 9:182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-014-0182-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alswat KA (2017) Gender disparities in osteoporosis. J Clin Med Res 9:382–387.  https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2970w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Qaseem A, Forciea MA, McLean RM et al (2017) Treatment of low bone density or osteoporosis to prevent fractures in men and women: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 166:818–839.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briot K, Roux C (2015) Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. RMD Open 1:e000014.  https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2014-000014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silverman S, Curtis J, Saag K et al (2015) International management of bone health in glucocorticoid-exposed individuals in the observational GLOW study. Osteoporos Int J Establ Result Coop Eur Found Osteoporos Natl Osteoporos Found USA 26:419–420.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2883-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R et al (2018) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int J Establ Result Coop Eur Found Osteoporos Natl Osteoporos Found USA.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lems WF, Dreinhöfer KE, Bischoff-Ferrari H et al (2017) EULAR/EFORT recommendations for management of patients older than 50 years with a fragility fracture and prevention of subsequent fractures. Ann Rheum Dis 76:802–810.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briot K, Roux C, Thomas T et al (2018) 2018 update of French recommendations on the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum 85:519–530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2018.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buckley L, Guyatt G, Fink HA et al (2017) 2017 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res 69:1095–1110.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Briot K, Cortet B, Roux C et al (2014) 2014 update of recommendations on the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum 81:493–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2014.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huas D, Debiais F, Blotman F et al (2010) Compliance and treatment satisfaction of post menopausal women treated for osteoporosis. Compliance with osteoporosis treatment. BMC Womens Health 10:26.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-10-26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cotté F-E, Fardellone P, Mercier F et al (2010) Adherence to monthly and weekly oral bisphosphonates in women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int J Establ Result Coop Eur Found Osteoporos Natl Osteoporos Found USA 21:145–155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0930-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freiberger E, Kemmler W, Siegrist M, Sieber C (2016) Frailty and exercise interventions : evidence and barriers for exercise programs. Z Gerontol Geriatr 49:606–611.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1134-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weaver J, Sajjan S, Lewiecki EM, Harris ST (2017) Diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis before and after fracture: a side-by-side analysis of commercially insured and medicare advantage osteoporosis patients. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 23:735–744.  https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.7.735 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yeam CT, Chia S, Tan HCC et al (2018) A systematic review of factors affecting medication adherence among patients with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 29:2623–2637.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4759-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schousboe JT (2013) Adherence with medications used to treat osteoporosis: behavioral insights. Curr Osteoporos Rep 11:21–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-013-0133-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark EM, Gould VC, Tobias JH, Horne R (2016) Natural history, reasons for, and impact of low/non-adherence to medications for osteoporosis in a cohort of community-dwelling older women already established on medication: a 2-year follow-up study. Osteoporos Int 27:579–590.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3271-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Besser SJ, Anderson JE, Weinman J (2012) How do osteoporosis patients perceive their illness and treatment? Implications for clinical practice. Arch Osteoporos 7:115–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-012-0089-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alami S, Hervouet L, Poiraudeau S et al (2016) Barriers to effective postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment: a qualitative study of patients’ and practitioners’ views. PLoS ONE 11:e0158365.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lau E, Papaioannou A, Dolovich L et al (2008) Patients’ adherence to osteoporosis therapy: exploring the perceptions of postmenopausal women. Can Fam Phys Med Fam Can 54:394–402Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salter C, McDaid L, Bhattacharya D et al (2014) Abandoned acid? Understanding adherence to bisphosphonate medications for the prevention of osteoporosis among older women: a qualitative longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 9:e83552.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giangregorio L, Dolovich L, Cranney A et al (2009) Osteoporosis risk perceptions among patients who have sustained a fragility fracture. Patient Educ Couns 74:213–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mazor KM, Velten S, Andrade SE, Yood RA (2010) Older womenʼs views about prescription osteoporosis medication: a cross-sectional, qualitative study. Drugs Aging 27:999–1008.  https://doi.org/10.2165/11584790-000000000-00000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barker KL, Toye F, Lowe CJM (2016) A qualitative systematic review of patients’ experience of osteoporosis using meta-ethnography. Arch Osteoporos.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0286-z Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nielsen DS, Brixen K, Huniche L (2011) Men’s experiences of living with osteoporosis: focus group interviews. Am J Mens Health 5:166–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Solimeo SL (2011) Living with a ‘women’s disease’: risk appraisal and management among men with osteoporosis. J Mens Health 8:185–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jomh.2011.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Merle B, Dupraz C, Haesebaert J et al (2018) Osteoporosis prevention: where are the barriers to improvement in a French general population? A qualitative study. Osteoporos Int J Establ Result Coop Eur Found Osteoporos Natl Osteoporos Found USA.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4720-5 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wong CP, Lok MK, Wun YT, Pang SM (2014) Chinese men’s knowledge and risk factors of osteoporosis: compared with women’s. Am J Mens Health 8:159–166.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988313503981 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Babatunde OT, Marquez S, Taylor A (2017) Osteoporosis knowledge and health beliefs among men in midlife years. J Nutr Educ Behav 49:759–763.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2017.05.346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hsieh E, Fraenkel L, Bradley EH et al (2014) Osteoporosis knowledge, self-efficacy, and health beliefs among Chinese individuals with HIV. Arch Osteoporos.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-014-0201-4 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lassemillante A-CM, Skinner TL, Hooper JD et al (2017) Osteoporosis-related health behaviors in men with prostate cancer and survivors: exploring osteoporosis knowledge, health beliefs, and self-efficacy. Am J Mens Health 11:13–23.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988315615956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Solomon DH, Iversen MD, Avorn J et al (2012) Osteoporosis telephonic intervention to improve medication regimen adherence: a large, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 172:477–483.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schousboe JT, Debold RC, Kuno LS et al (2005) Education and phone follow-up in postmenopausal women at risk for osteoporosis: effects on calcium intake, exercise frequency, and medication use. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 13:395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clowes JA, Peel NFA, Eastell R (2004) The impact of monitoring on adherence and persistence with antiresorptive treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:1117–1123.  https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2003-030501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jeihooni AK, Hidarnia A, Kaveh MH et al (2015) Effects of an osteoporosis prevention program based on health belief model among females. Nurs Midwifery Stud 4:e26731.  https://doi.org/10.17795/nmsjournal26731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nielsen D, Ryg J, Nielsen W et al (2010) Patient education in groups increases knowledge of osteoporosis and adherence to treatment: a two-year randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 81:155–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    WHO Working Group (2010) Therapeutic patient education continuing education programmes for health care providers in the field of prevention of chronic diseases. Report of a WHO Working Group 1998. http://www.euro.who.int/document/e63674.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2010
  38. 38.
    Raybould G, Babatunde O, Evans AL et al (2018) Expressed information needs of patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures: a systematic review. Arch Osteoporos.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0470-4 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care 19:349–357.  https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sale JEM, Gignac MA, Frankel L et al (2012) Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture—a new understanding based on fracture patients’ communication. Osteoporos Int 23:2829–2834.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-1914-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Siris ES, Gehlbach S, Adachi JD et al (2011) Failure to perceive increased risk of fracture in women 55 years and older: the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). OsteoporosInt 22:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roux C, Wyman A, Hooven FH et al (2012) Burden of non-hip, non-vertebral fractures on quality of life in postmenopausal women: the Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). Osteoporos Int J Establ Result Coop Eur Found Osteoporos Natl Osteoporos Found USA 23:2863–2871.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-1935-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tory HO, Solomon DH, Desai SP (2015) Analysis of quality improvement efforts in preventing glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 44:483–488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Winzenberg T, Oldenburg B, Jones G (2010) Bone density testing: an under-utilised and under-researched health education tool for osteoporosis prevention? Nutrients 2:985–996.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nu2090985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sale JEM, Gignac MA, Hawker G et al (2014) Non-pharmacological strategies used by patients at high risk for future fracture to manage fracture risk—a qualitative study. Osteoporos Int 25:281–288.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2405-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Beauvais
    • 1
    Email author
  • Didier Poivret
    • 2
  • Eric Lespessailles
    • 3
  • Corinne Thevenot
    • 4
  • Dominique Aubraye
    • 5
  • Liana Euller Ziegler
    • 6
  • Martine Beranger
    • 3
  • Edith Filaire
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  • Sophie Gendarme
    • 10
  • Karine Legrand
    • 10
  • Yves Magar
    • 11
  • Mickael Rousière
    • 1
  • Florence Lévy-Weil
    • 5
  • Bernard Cortet
    • 12
  • Anne Christine Rat
    • 13
    • 14
  • SOLID’OS Working Group
  1. 1.Rheumatology DepartmentHôpital Universitaire Saint Antoine, APHPParisFrance
  2. 2.Rheumatology DepartmentCentre Hospitalier régional Metz-ThionvilleThionvilleFrance
  3. 3.Rheumatology DepartmentCentre Hospitalier RégionalOrléans La SourceFrance
  4. 4.Rheumatology DepartmentCentre HospitalierLaonFrance
  5. 5.Rheumatology DepartmentCentre Hospitalier Victor DupouyArgenteuilFrance
  6. 6.Rheumatology DepartmentHôpital Universitaire Pasteur 2NiceFrance
  7. 7.CIAMS, Universite Paris Sud, Université Paris-SaclayOrsay CedexFrance
  8. 8.CIAMS, Université d’OrleansOrleansFrance
  9. 9.INRA, UNH, Unite de Nutrition Humaine, CRNH Auvergne, Université Clermont AuvergneClermont-FerrandFrance
  10. 10.Centre Hospitalier régional Universitaire de Nancy, INSERM, CIC Epidémiologie cliniqueNancyFrance
  11. 11.EdusantéVanvesFrance
  12. 12.Centre Hospitalier Universitaire C.H.U. Lille and Université Lille 2, Rheumatology Department and EA 4490LilleFrance
  13. 13.Université de Lorraine, APEMACNancyFrance
  14. 14.CHU Caen Rheumatology DepartmentINSERM, CHRU Nancy, CIC 1433 Epidémiologie cliniqueCaenFrance

Personalised recommendations