Experiences of being diagnosed with osteoporosis: a meta-synthesis
- 291 Downloads
This systematic review provides synthesised knowledge and guidance to health professionals on the experiences and perspectives of being diagnosed with osteoporosis from the patient’s point of view. Using individuals’ experiences and meanings can promote tailored and targeted information and guidance on osteoporosis, bone care and treatment at different stages of the osteoporosis trajectory.
To be diagnosed with osteoporosis with or without fragility fractures affects individuals differently. The aim of this review was firstly to aggregate existing qualitative evidence regarding an individual’s experience of being diagnosed with osteoporosis at different stages, and secondly, to use a systematic approach to develop a conceptual understanding of central issues relevant for health professionals in order to provide support and guidance to patients/individuals.
This study used a systematic review methodology and methods for qualitative synthesis as recommended by Cochrane and integrated the findings of qualitative research from eight databases (Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, SweMed+, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science) to July 2016. Selection and assessment were performed by three authors while four authors were involved in the analysis. Findings were cross-checked with the original article to ensure consistency with the individual’s accounts.
Our findings have revealed that individuals diagnosed with osteoporosis do not perceive osteoporosis as a biomedical trajectory but as a self-perceived continuum of severity and health. To be diagnosed with osteoporosis affects individuals differently depending on, for example, personal experience, pre-conceived notions of or knowledge about the disease, fragility fractures or pain. Hence, individuals will create a meaning of the diagnosis based on self-perceived fracture risk, self-perceived severity of osteoporosis and at the same time, self-perceived health.
This meta-synthesis provides knowledge for health professionals on the experiences and perspectives of being diagnosed with osteoporosis from the patient’s point of view. The experience, meaning and significance of osteoporosis must be taken into consideration and can be used to promote tailored and targeted information and guidance on osteoporosis, bone care and treatment at different stages of the osteoporosis trajectory.
KeywordsOsteoporosis Systematic review Qualitative research Patient experiences
The review was supported by the Region of Southern Denmark. The funding agency had no direct role in the conduct of the study, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data or the preparation, review, and final approval of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
All authors have completed the authorship and disclosure form. CM Jensen, AC Smith, and J Clemensen have no conflict of interest. PR Jakobsen and MJ Rothmann have received a speaker fee from Eli Lilly. AP Hermann serves on advisory Boards for Eli Lilly, Amgen, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly, in addition to a speaker fee from Eli Lilly, GSK, Genzyme, Amgen. These disclosed interests are outside the submitted work.
- 2.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. NIH Consens Statement 2000;17(1):1–45Google Scholar
- 4.Schwarz P, Jorgensen NR, Abrahamsen B (2014) Status of drug development for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Expert Opin Drug Discovery 9(3):245–253Google Scholar
- 8.Siris ES, Gehlbach S, Adachi JD, Boonen S, Chapurlat RD, Compston JE, Cooper C, Delmas P, Díez-Pérez A, Hooven FH, LaCroix AZ, Netelenbos JC, Pfeilschifter J, Rossini M, Roux C, Saag KG, Sambrook P, Silverman S, Watts NB, Wyman A, Greenspan SL (2011) Failure to perceive increased risk of fracture in women 55 years and older: the global longitudinal study of osteoporosis in women (GLOW). Osteoporos Int 22(1):27–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Rothmann MJ, Ammentorp J, Bech M, Gram J, Rasmussen OW, Barkmann R, Glüer CC, Hermann AP (2015) Self-perceived facture risk: factors underlying women’s perception of risk for osteoporotic fractures: the risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation study (ROSE). Osteoporos Int 26(2):689–697PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Reventlow SD, Hvas L, Malterud K (2006) Making the invisible body visible. Bone scans, osteoporosis and women’s bodily experiences. Soc Sci Med (1982) 62(11):2720–2731Google Scholar
- 23.Hjalmarson HV, Strandmark M, Klässbo M (2007) Healthy risk awareness motivates fracture prevention behaviour: a grounded theory study of women with osteoporosis. Int J Qual Stud Health Well Being 2(4):236–245Google Scholar
- 26.Cochrane Handbook of Systematic reviews http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_20/20_qualitative_research_and_cochrane_reviews.htm Accessed 1–12-17
- 27.Torgerson C (2003) Systematic reviews. London: Continuum International Publishing GroupGoogle Scholar
- 28.Noblit G HR. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies (Qualitative Research Methods) United States of America: Saga Publications, Inc.; 1988Google Scholar
- 30.Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual. https://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual-2014.pdf Accessed 1-12-17
- 31.World Health O, Risk WHOSGoAoF, its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Assessment of Fracture R, its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal O. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: report of a WHO Study Group. WHO technical report series. 1994:129 sGoogle Scholar
- 33.Kristiansen KM BN, Tingleff EB, Rossen CB (2008) Litteratursøgning i praksi: begreber, strategier og modeller. Sygeplejersken 108(10)Google Scholar
- 34.Frandsen TF, Dyrvig AK, Christensen JB, Fasterholdt I, Oelholm AM (2014) A guide to obtain validity and reproducibility in systematic reviews. Ugeskr Laeger 176(7)Google Scholar
- 43.CASP http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_25658615020e427da194a325e7773d42.pdf Accessed 1–12-17
- 44.Kanis JA, Johnell O (1999) The burden of osteoporosis. J Endocrinol Investig 22(8):583–588Google Scholar
- 45.Reventlow SD (2008) Risikoopfattelse og osteoporose hos kvinder i alderen 60–70 år: en kvalitativ undersøgelse af risikooplevelse, kulturelle forestillinger, kropslige opfattelser og kropspraksis. University of CopenhagenGoogle Scholar