The relationship between socioeconomic status and fracture in a fracture clinic setting: data from the Nottingham Fracture Liaison Service

Characterization of fracture liaison service non-responders after invitation by home visits and questionnaires

This study aimed to gain insight in specific characteristics and beliefs of FLS non-responders.

INTRODUCTION

The proportion of non-responding fracture liaison service (FLS) invitees is high but characteristics of FLS non-responders are unknown.

METHODS

We contacted FLS non-responders by telephone to consent with home visit (HV) and to fill in a questionnaire or, if HV was refused, to receive a questionnaire by post (Q), to gain insight in beliefs on fracture cause and subsequent fracture risk.

RESULTS

Out of 716 FLS invitees, 510 attended, nine declined, and 197 did not respond. Of these non-responders, 181 patients were consecutively traced and phoned until 50 consented with HV. Forty-two declined HV but consented with Q. Excluded were eight Q-consenters in whom no choice was offered (either HV or Q) and 81 patients who declined any proposition (non-HV|Q). 62% HV and Q could recall the FLS invitation letter. The fracture cause was differently believed between HV and Q; the fall (96% versus 79%, p = .02), bad physical condition (36% versus 2%, p = .0001), dizziness or imbalance (24% versus Q 7%, p = .03), osteoporosis (16% versus 2%, p = .02), and increased fracture risk (26% versus 17%, NS). Age ≥ 70, woman, and major fracture were significantly associated with HV consent compared to Q (OR 2.7, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively) and HV compared to non-HV|Q (OR 16.8, 5.3, and 6.1).

CONCLUSION

FLS non-responders consider fracture risk as low. Note, 50 patients (about 25%) consented with a home visit after one telephone call, mainly older women with a major fracture. This non-responder subgroup with high subsequent fracture risk is therefore approachable for secondary fracture prevention.

Challenges and opportunities to improve fracture liaison service attendance: fracture registration and patient characteristics and motivations

This questionnaire-based study evaluated the reasons for attendance or non-attendance at the fracture liaison service in patients with a recent fracture. Frailty, male sex, living alone, and low education were associated with non-attendance, and the information perceived by the patient was associated with attendance.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate hospital registration- and patient-related factors associated with attendance or non-attendance to the Fracture Liaison Service (FLS).

METHODS

Out of 1728 consecutive patients registered with a recent fracture at hospital entry, and after exclusion of 440 patients because of death, residence in a nursing home, already on osteoporosis treatment, or recent DXA, 1288 received an FLS invitation. We evaluated the hospital registration of fractures at entry and exit of the hospital. A questionnaire was sent to all invited patients to evaluate factors related to non-attendance (including age, gender, frailty, living alone, income, education, extrinsic motivations (impact of perceived information) and intrinsic motivations (patient's own perceived views and opinions) and to attendance (personal impact of clinical professionals' advice).

RESULTS

There were 278 more hospital exit codes than entry codes. Of the 1288 invited patients, 745 returned analyzable questionnaires (537 attenders and 208 non-attenders). Non-attendance was associated with male gender (OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.35, 3.21), frailty (OR: 1.62, CI: 1.08, 2.45), living alone (OR:2.05, CI: 1.48, 2.85), low education (OR: 1.82, CI: 1.27, 2.63), not interested in bone strength (OR: 1.85, CI: 1.33, 2.63), and being unaware of increased subsequent fracture risk (OR: 1.75, CI: 1.08, 2.86). Information perceived by the patient was significantly associated with attendance (OR: 3.32, CI: 1.75, 6.27).

CONCLUSION

Fracture entry registration inaccuracies, male gender, frailty, living alone, having low general education, or low interest in bone health and subsequent fracture risk were independently associated with FLS non-attendance. Adequately perceived advice (to have a bone densitometry and attend the FLS) was strongly associated with FLS attendance.

Socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures and the use of DXA scans: data from the Danish population-based ROSE study

There is a need of studies exploring the link between socioeconomic status and DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, which was the aim of the present study. No differences in socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures were found. However, women with further/higher education and higher income are more often DXA-scanned.

INTRODUCTION

Lower socioeconomic status is known to be associated with a range of chronic conditions and with access to health care services. The link between socioeconomic status and the use of DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, however, needs to be explored more closely. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status and both DXA scan utilization and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) using a population-based cohort of Danish women and national registers.

METHODS

The study included 17,155 women (65-81 years) sampled from the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study (ROSE). Information on socioeconomic background, DXA scans, and MOFs was retrieved from national registers. Competing-risk regression analyses were performed. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years.

RESULTS

A total of 4245 women had a DXA scan (24.7%) and 1719 (10.0%) had an incident MOF during follow-up. Analyses showed that women with basic education had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women with further or higher education (greater than upper secondary education and vocational training education) (subhazard ratio (SHR) = 0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.89, adjusted for age and comorbidity). Moreover, women with disposable income in the low and medium tertiles had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women in the high-income tertile (SHR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97 and SHR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95, respectively, adjusted for age and comorbidity). No association between socioeconomic background and probability of DXA was found in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The study found no differences in risk of osteoporotic fractures depending on socioeconomic status. However, women with further or higher education as well as higher income are more often DXA-scanned.

Development of fracture liaison services: What have we learned?

Due to dramatic improvements in life expectancy we are seeing a rapidly growing population of older people. Increasing frailty and susceptibility to fragility fractures are becoming pressing issues for both the individuals that suffer them as well as society, through pressures on health and social care budgets. The success of fracture liaison services, co-ordinated programmes enhancing the management of the fracture, osteoporosis, frailty and falls risk, is undisputed. To achieve optimal outcomes, however, it is important to have a standardisation of design, scope and structure of the service. Experience has taught us that by delegating responsibility for the holistic care of the patient to a trained and adequately resourced professional/team (fracture prevention practitioner) with clear standards against which benchmarking occurs, is the optimal model of delivery. Future challenges include how best to measure the success of services in imparting a reduction in fractures at a local population level as well as how to detect those patients with unmet need who do not uniformly present to health care services, such as those with vertebral fractures. The implementation of fracture liaison services however, is a clear demonstration of how collaboration between health care, social care and charity organisations, among others, has materially improved the health and well-being of the population.

Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis

Fragility fractures are sentinels of osteoporosis, and as such all patients with low-trauma fractures should be considered for further investigation for osteoporosis and, if confirmed, started on osteoporosis medication. Fracture liaison services (FLSs) with varying models of care are in place to take responsibility for this investigative and treatment process. This review aims to describe outcomes for patients with osteoporotic fragility fractures as part of FLSs. The most intensive service that includes identification, assessment and treatment of patients appears to deliver the best outcomes. This FLS model is associated with reduction in re-fracture risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.18–0.67 over 2–4 years), reduced mortality (HR 0.65 over 2 years), increased assessment of bone mineral density (relative risk [RR] 2–3), increased treatment initiation (RR 1.5–4.25) and adherence to treatment (65%–88% at 1 year) and is cost-effective. In response to this evidence, key organizations and stakeholders have published guidance and framework to ensure that best practice in FLSs is delivered.