1
|
Athanasopoulou K, Mentis M, Vathi-Sarava P, Nikolaou G, Panagiotopoulos E. Health literacy of older adults with musculoskeletal problems: A systematic review. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs 2024; 55:101127. [PMID: 39217800 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijotn.2024.101127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2024] [Revised: 08/16/2024] [Accepted: 08/24/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION People with poor Health Literacy (HL) find it difficult to understand medical information in their daily lives, participate in health-related decision making and comply with medical instructions. The physical effects of ageing on the musculoskeletal system have a direct impact on skills related to the management of health problems. Many older adults have limited HL, which impacts their ability to fully engage in their care and their health status. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the published research regarding the prevalence of low HL and its impact on health outcomes of older adults with musculoskeletal problems. METHODS In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, this review examined all peer-reviewed studies published in English, with specific pre-selected eligibility criteria. RESULTS The combined searches yielded 1617 records of which 19 articles were eligible for inclusion. The percentage of low HL varied across the studies of this review, ranging from 14% to 67%. In most studies, however, patients with limited HL were about 1/3 of the participants. Patients of lower educational level, male gender, older age, lower income, unemployment and different country of origin had lower HL level. Low HL was also associated with worse health outcomes, especially adherence to treatment, pain, functionality and health status. DISCUSSION It is of major importance to conduct educational interventions aimed at enhancing HL in this patient group, as these will contribute to the empowerment and the promotion of appropriate health behaviors of these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katerina Athanasopoulou
- Educationalist, PhD Student, Department of Educational Sciences and Social Work, University of Patras, Greece.
| | - Manolis Mentis
- Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences and Social Work, University of Patras, Greece.
| | | | - Georgios Nikolaou
- Professor, Department of Educational Sciences and Social Work, University of Patras, Greece.
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sahota O, Narayanasamy M, Bastounis A, Paskins Z, Bishop S, Langley T, Gittoes N, Davis S, Baily A, Holmes M, Leonardi-Bee J. Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-169. [PMID: 38634483 PMCID: PMC11056815 DOI: 10.3310/wypf0472] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates. Results Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting. Conclusions Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs. Future work Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting. Limitations Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Opinder Sahota
- Department of Health Care for Older People, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | | | | | - Zoe Paskins
- School of Medicine, Keele University and Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
| | - Simon Bishop
- Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Tessa Langley
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Neil Gittoes
- Centre for Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sarah Davis
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Ann Baily
- Lay Member, Nottingham Osteoporosis Society Patient Support group, Nottingham, UK
| | - Moira Holmes
- Lay Member, Nottingham Osteoporosis Society Patient Support group, Nottingham, UK
| | - Jo Leonardi-Bee
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Narayanasamy M, Bishop S, Sahota O, Paskins Z, Gittoes N, Langley T. Acceptability and engagement amongst patients on oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in older adults. Age Ageing 2022; 51:6834153. [PMID: 36413592 DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afac255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2022] [Revised: 09/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Osteoporosis is common in older adults leading to fragility fractures at enormous individual and economic cost. Improving long-term adherence with bisphosphonate treatments reduces fracture risk, but adherence rates for first-line oral bisphosphonate alendronate remains low. Although alternative treatment regimens, including annual intravenous infusions are available, patient acceptability remains unclear. Therefore, understanding patients' acceptability and engagement in different bisphosphonate regimens is important to ensure optimal treatment benefits. METHODS Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 78 patients with a mean age of 69.9 years, who had taken or received bisphosphonates for osteoporosis within the last 24 months. Data analysis included iterative categorisation and used the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) to compare the acceptability of treatments regimens. RESULTS Treatment acceptability and engagement were influenced by the extent to which patients understood the prescribed treatment, and evidence of the treatment working. Acceptability and engagement were compromised when treatment was perceived as burdensome, personal costs were incurred, and patients' values were incompatible with the regimen. The balancing of these factors contributed to patients' ability to cope with the treatment and their emotional responses. Intravenous treatment was generally perceived as easier to understand, more effective, less burdensome with fewer opportunity costs, and a preferable regimen compared with oral bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS Annual intravenous zoledronate bisphosphonate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients, perceived as more straightforward to engage in, although a small portion of patients on oral bisphosphonates were satisfied with treatment. Further research is needed to identify how acceptability and engagement can be optimised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melanie Narayanasamy
- Centre for Rehabilitation & Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Simon Bishop
- Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource Management, Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Opinder Sahota
- Geriatric Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Zoe Paskins
- Primary Care and Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Neil Gittoes
- Department of Endocrinology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tessa Langley
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
The difference in knowledge and attitudes of using mobile health applications between actual user and non-user among adults aged 50 and older. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0241350. [PMID: 33108792 PMCID: PMC7591083 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241350] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Despite the great benefits of mobile health applications (mHAs) in managing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) internationally, studies have documented general challenges to broad adoption of mHAs among older age groups. By focusing on broad adoption, these studies have been limited in their evaluation of adults aged 50 and older who have high risk of NCDs and can benefit the most from the functionalities provided by mHAs. Objective This study aims to evaluate the knowledge, self-confidence, perceived benefits, and barriers of using mHAs depending on experience with mHAs among adults aged 50 and older. Furthermore, we aim to identify the factors associated with the actual use of mHAs. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey at a single tertiary hospital in Seoul, Korea, between May 1 and May 31, 2018. Of the 625 participants who were contacted, 323 participants were granted full inclusion to the study. We compared demographics, knowledge, self-confidence, and perceived benefits and barriers by experience with using mHAs, then performed logistic regression to identify the factors associated with mHA use. Results Among the participants, 64.1% (N = 207) had experience using mHAs. Those in the experienced group were more likely to have more than college education (55.1% vs. 27.5%, P < 0.001) and to report a higher monthly income (≥ $7,000, 22.7% vs. 18.1%, P = 0.05) than their less-experienced counterparts. Although the experienced group was more likely to have higher self-confidence in using mHAs, about half of the study participants, including people with experience using mHAs, did not have appropriate knowledge of mobile technology. With adjusted logistic model, higher educated (adjusted PR (aPR) = 1.53, 95% CI, 1.26–1.80), higher perceived benefits of mHAs (aPR = 1.43, 95% CI, 1.04–1.83), and higher self-confidence using mHAs (aPR = 1.41, 95% CI, 1.12–1.70) were significant factors associated with mHA use. Conclusions The use of mHAs among adults aged 50 and older is becoming more common globally; nevertheless, there are still people unable to use mHAs properly because of lack of experience and knowledge. Strategies are needed to encourage the reliable usage of mHAs among those who may need it the most by improving self-confidence and better articulating benefits.
Collapse
|
8
|
Kelly A, Crimston-Smith L, Tong A, Bartlett SJ, Bekker CL, Christensen R, De Vera MA, de Wit M, Evans V, Gill M, March L, Manera K, Nieuwlaat R, Salmasi S, Scholte-Voshaar M, Singh JA, Sumpton D, Toupin-April K, Tugwell P, van den Bemt B, Verstappen S, Tymms K. Scope of Outcomes in Trials and Observational Studies of Interventions Targeting Medication Adherence in Rheumatic Conditions: A Systematic Review. J Rheumatol 2019; 47:1565-1574. [PMID: 31839595 DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.190726] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/06/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Nonadherence to medications is common in rheumatic conditions and associated with increased morbidity. Heterogeneous outcome reporting by researchers compromises the synthesis of evidence of interventions targeting adherence. We aimed to assess the scope of outcomes in interventional studies of medication adherence. METHODS We searched electronic databases to February 2019 for published randomized controlled trials and observational studies of interventions with the primary outcome of medication adherence including adults with any rheumatic condition, written in English. We extracted and analyzed all outcome domains and adherence measures with prespecified extraction and analysis protocols. RESULTS Overall, 53 studies reported 71 outcome domains classified into adherence (1 domain), health outcomes (38 domains), and adherence-related factors (e.g., medication knowledge; 32 domains). We subdivided adherence into 3 phases: initiation (n = 13 studies, 25%), implementation (n = 32, 60%), persistence (n = 27, 51%), and phase unclear (n = 20, 38%). Thirty-seven different instruments reported adherence in 115 unique ways (this includes different adherence definitions and calculations, metric, and method of aggregation). Forty-one studies (77%) reported health outcomes. The most frequently reported were medication adverse events (n = 24, 45%), disease activity (n = 11, 21%), bone turnover markers/physical function/quality of life (each n = 10, 19%). Thirty-three studies (62%) reported adherence-related factors. The most frequently reported were medication beliefs (n = 8, 15%), illness perception/medication satisfaction/satisfaction with medication information (each n = 5, 9%), condition knowledge/medication knowledge/trust in doctor (each n = 3, 6%). CONCLUSION The outcome domains and adherence measures in interventional studies targeting adherence are heterogeneous. Consensus on relevant outcomes will improve the comparison of different strategies to support medication adherence in rheumatology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ayano Kelly
- A. Kelly, Clinical Associate Lecturer, Australian National University, MBBS, FRACP, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, and Canberra Rheumatology, Canberra, and Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia;
| | - Luke Crimston-Smith
- L. Crimston-Smith, BN, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, and Canberra Rheumatology, Canberra, Australia
| | - Allison Tong
- A. Tong, PhD, Professor, K. Manera, MIPH, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, and Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Susan J Bartlett
- S.J. Bartlett, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, McGill University and Research Institute, McGill University Health Centres, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Charlotte L Bekker
- C.L. Bekker, PhD, Department of Pharmacy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Robin Christensen
- R. Christensen, PhD, Professor of Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology, Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, the Parker Institute, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, and Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Mary A De Vera
- M.A. De Vera, PhD, Assistant Professor, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Maarten de Wit
- M. de Wit, PhD, OMERACT Patient Research Partner, the Netherlands
| | - Vicki Evans
- V. Evans, PhD, Clear Vision Consulting, Canberra, and OMERACT Patient Research Partner, and Discipline of Optometry, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
| | - Michael Gill
- M. Gill, BA, Dragon Claw, Sydney, Australia, and OMERACT Patient Research Partner
| | - Lyn March
- L. March, PhD, Professor, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, and Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Northern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Karine Manera
- A. Tong, PhD, Professor, K. Manera, MIPH, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, and Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Robby Nieuwlaat
- R. Nieuwlaat, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shahrzad Salmasi
- S. Salmasi, MSc, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Marieke Scholte-Voshaar
- M. Scholte-Voshaar, MSc, Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands and OMERACT Patient Research Partner
| | - Jasvinder A Singh
- J.A. Singh, Professor, MD, Medicine Service, VA Medical Center, and Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama, and Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Daniel Sumpton
- D. Sumpton, MBBS, FRACP, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, and Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, and Department of Rheumatology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Karine Toupin-April
- K. Toupin-April, PhD, Associate Scientist, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, and Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics and School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Peter Tugwell
- P. Tugwell, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Bart van den Bemt
- B. van den Bemt, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, and Department of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Ubbergen, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne Verstappen
- S. Verstappen, PhD, Reader, Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Kathleen Tymms
- K. Tymms, MBBS, FRACP, Associate Professor, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, and Canberra Rheumatology, and Department of Rheumatology, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia
| |
Collapse
|