1
|
Bullock L, Manning F, Hawarden A, Fleming J, Leyland S, Clark EM, Thomas S, Gidlow C, Iglesias-Urrutia CP, Protheroe J, Lefroy J, Ryan S, O'Neill TW, Mallen C, Jinks C, Paskins Z. Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study. Arch Osteoporos 2024; 19:50. [PMID: 38898212 PMCID: PMC11186902 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-024-01410-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 05/29/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines. PURPOSE The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs. METHODS Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST. RESULTS Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSIONS Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurna Bullock
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
| | - Fay Manning
- University of Exeter Medical School, Devon, UK
| | - Ashley Hawarden
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Jane Fleming
- Cambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Addenbrooke's Hospital Fracture Liaison Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Emma M Clark
- Bristol Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Simon Thomas
- Prescribing Decision Support Ltd and School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Christopher Gidlow
- Centre for Health and Development, Staffordshire University, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Cynthia P Iglesias-Urrutia
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
- Danish Centre for Healthcare Improvement (CHI), Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Joanne Protheroe
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Janet Lefroy
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Sarah Ryan
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Terence W O'Neill
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Christian Mallen
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Clare Jinks
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Zoe Paskins
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bullock L, Nicholls E, Cherrington A, Butler-Walley S, Clark EM, Fleming J, Leyland S, Bentley I, Thomas S, Iglesias-Urrutia CP, Webb D, Smith J, Bathers S, Lewis S, Clifford A, Siciliano M, Protheroe J, Ryan S, Lefroy J, Dale N, Hawarden A, Connacher S, Horne R, O'Neill TW, Mallen CD, Jinks C, Paskins Z. A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol. NIHR OPEN RESEARCH 2024; 4:14. [PMID: 39145101 PMCID: PMC11320037 DOI: 10.3310/nihropenres.13571.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 08/16/2024]
Abstract
Background Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation. Methods The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics. Discussion The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines. Trial registration ISRCTN 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurna Bullock
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Elaine Nicholls
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Andrea Cherrington
- Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | | | - Emma M Clark
- Bristol Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - Jane Fleming
- Cambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, UK
- Addenbrooke’s Hospital Fracture Liaison Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Ida Bentley
- School of Medicine Research User Group, Keele University, Keele, England, UK
| | | | - Cynthia P Iglesias-Urrutia
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, UK
- Danish Centre for Healthcare Improvements (CHI), Aalborg University, Aalborg, North Denmark Region, Denmark
| | - David Webb
- Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Jo Smith
- Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Sarah Bathers
- Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Sarah Lewis
- Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Angela Clifford
- School of Nursing & Midwifery, Keele University, Keele, England, UK
| | - Michele Siciliano
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, UK
| | - Joanne Protheroe
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Sarah Ryan
- School of Nursing & Midwifery, Keele University, Keele, England, UK
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke on Trent, UK
| | - Janet Lefroy
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Nicky Dale
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke on Trent, UK
| | - Ashley Hawarden
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke on Trent, UK
| | - Sarah Connacher
- Oxford Fracture Prevention & Osteoporosis Service, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Robert Horne
- Centre for Behavioural Medicine, UCL School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, England, UK
| | - Terence W O'Neill
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Christian D Mallen
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Clare Jinks
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
| | - Zoe Paskins
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Health Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, England, UK
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke on Trent, UK
| |
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
|
4
|
Bullock L, Abdelmagid S, Fleming J, Leyland S, Clark EM, Gidlow C, Iglesias-Urrutia CP, O'Neill TW, Mallen C, Jinks C, Paskins Z. Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey. Arch Osteoporos 2023; 19:5. [PMID: 38123745 PMCID: PMC10733195 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01361-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
We conducted a survey of FLSs' consultation conduct and content which identified marked variation in whether FLS HCPs discussed osteoporosis medicine with patients. A review of service pro formas showed more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening' than to 'informing'. We propose an expanded FLS typology and model FLS pro forma. PURPOSE To investigate the nature of direct patient contact in fracture liaison service (FLS) delivery, examine the use and content of pro formas to guide information eliciting and sharing in FLS consultations, and determine service changes which were implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS An electronic survey of UK FLS healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was distributed through clinical networks, social media, and other professional networks. Participants were asked to upload service pro formas used to guide consultation content. Documentary analysis findings were mapped to UK FLS clinical standards. RESULTS Forty-seven HCPs responded, providing data on 39 UK FLSs, over half of all 74 FLSs reporting to FLS-database. Results showed variation in which HCP made clinical decisions, whether medicines were discussed with patients or not, and in prescribing practice. Services were variably affected by COVID, with most reporting a move to more remote consulting. The documentary analysis of eight service pro formas showed that these contained more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening', with fewer pro formas prompting the clinician to offer information and support (e.g., about coping with pain). Based on our findings we propose an expanded FLS typology and have developed a model FLS pro forma. CONCLUSION There is marked variation in the delivery of services and content of consultations in UK FLSs including discussion about osteoporosis medications. Clinical standards for FLSs should clarify the roles of primary and secondary HCPs and the importance of holistic approaches to patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurna Bullock
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
| | | | - Jane Fleming
- Cambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Addenbrooke's Hospital Fracture Liaison Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Emma M Clark
- Bristol Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Christopher Gidlow
- Centre for Health and Development, Staffordshire University, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Cynthia P Iglesias-Urrutia
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
- Danish Centre for Healthcare Improvements (CHI), Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Terence W O'Neill
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Clare Jinks
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Zoe Paskins
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Staffordshire and Stoke-On-Trent Partnership Trust, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Paskins Z, Moult A, Corp N, Bastounis A, Davis S, Narayanasamy MJ, Griffin J, Gittoes N, Leonardi-Bee J, Langley T, Bishop S, Sahota O. Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise. Osteoporos Int 2023; 34:1711-1718. [PMID: 37294333 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06806-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Worldwide, many people who would benefit from osteoporosis drugs are not offered or receiving them, resulting in an osteoporosis care gap. Adherence with bisphosphonates is particularly low. This study aimed to identify stakeholder research priorities relating to bisphosphonate treatment regimens for prevention of osteoporotic fractures. METHODS A three-step approach based on the James Lind Alliance methodology for identification and prioritisation of research questions was used. Research uncertainties were gathered from a large programme of related research studies about bisphosphonate regimens and from recent published international clinical guidelines. Clinical and public stakeholders refined the list of uncertainties into research questions. The third step prioritised the questions using a modified nominal group technique. RESULTS In total, 34 draft uncertainties were finalised into 33 research questions by stakeholders. The top 10 includes questions relating to which people should be offered intravenous bisphosphonates first line (1); optimal duration of treatment (2); the role of bone turnover markers in treatment breaks (3); support patient need for medicine optimisation (4); support primary care practitioner need regarding bisphosphonates (5); comparing zoledronate given in community vs hospital settings (6); ensuring quality standards are met (7); the long-term model of care (8); best bisphosphonate for people aged under 50 (9); and supporting patient decision-making about bisphosphonates (10). CONCLUSION This study reports, for the first time, topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate osteoporosis treatment regimens. These findings have implications for research into implementation to address the care gap and education of healthcare professionals. Using James Lind Alliance methodology, this study reports prioritised topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis. The priorities address how to better implement guidelines to address the care gap, understanding patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, and how to optimise long-term care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Paskins
- School of Medicine, Keele University, David Weatherall Building, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Haywood Hospital, High Lane, Burslem, Stoke-On-Trent, ST6 7AG, UK.
| | - Alice Moult
- School of Medicine, Keele University, David Weatherall Building, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - Nadia Corp
- School of Medicine, Keele University, David Weatherall Building, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - Anastasios Bastounis
- Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, City Hospital, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Sarah Davis
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK
| | | | - Jill Griffin
- Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS), St James House, The Square, Lower Bristol Road, BA2 3BH, UK
| | - Neil Gittoes
- Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jo Leonardi-Bee
- Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Tessa Langley
- Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Simon Bishop
- Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK
| | - Opinder Sahota
- Department of Healthcare of Older People, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Patel SK, Khan S, Dasari V, Gupta S. Beyond Pain Relief: An In-Depth Review of Vertebral Height Restoration After Balloon Kyphoplasty in Vertebral Compression Fractures. Cureus 2023; 15:e46124. [PMID: 37900521 PMCID: PMC10612383 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46124] [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: 08/26/2023] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 10/31/2023] Open
Abstract
This comprehensive review delves into the intricate landscape of vertebral height restoration after balloon kyphoplasty in cases of vertebral compression fractures. With a comprehensive examination of procedural intricacies, radiological evaluations, clinical outcomes, and influential factors, a nuanced comprehension unfolds. Beyond its immediate alleviation of pain, vertebral height restoration emerges as a linchpin in enhancing spinal alignment, fostering functional recuperation, and augmenting the overall quality of life. This review underscores the pivotal role of balloon kyphoplasty, transcending its mere medical utility to become a conduit for renewed independence and well-being among individuals grappling with vertebral compression fractures. The ongoing advancements in medical science and the continued pursuit of research stand poised to amplify the significance of vertebral height restoration, manifesting a promising horizon for individuals seeking respite from pain, a revitalised capacity for movement, and a life unburdened by its constraints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siddharth K Patel
- Orthopaedics, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
| | - Sohael Khan
- Orthopaedics, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
| | - Ventaktesh Dasari
- Orthopaedics, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
| | - Suvarn Gupta
- Orthopaedics, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ralston KAP, Hauser B, Paskins Z, Ralston SH. Effective Communication and the Osteoporosis Care Gap. J Bone Miner Res 2022; 37:2049-2054. [PMID: 36183670 DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4701] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2022] [Revised: 08/18/2022] [Accepted: 08/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Many pharmacological treatments are now available to prevent the occurrence of fragility fractures in patients with osteoporosis. Despite this, concerns persist that many individuals who might benefit from osteoporosis treatment do not receive it-the "osteoporosis treatment gap." The underlying reasons for this gap are diverse and include those who are not identified as being eligible for treatment as well as those who intentionally choose not to take medications because of uncertainty, unanswered questions, or an inability to understand or do what is being asked of them. In this perspective article we highlight the importance of providing information on the causes and consequences of osteoporosis during encounters when treatment is being discussed as well as what osteoporosis treatment can achieve and what it cannot. We also review the importance of communicating the benefits and risks of treatment in absolute terms so that patients can understand what taking treatment will mean for them and discuss the utility of decision aids to assist in these conversations. We suggest it is not the treatment gap that is the problem but the care gap. This language acknowledges the importance of healthcare providers identifying those likely to benefit from treatment and increasing the quality of clinical conversations to promote patient engagement and involvement while respecting that treatment is not suitable or wanted by all. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Barbara Hauser
- Centre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, MRC Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.,Rheumatic Diseases Unit, NHS Lothian, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Zoe Paskins
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.,Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midland Partnership NHS Trust, Haywood Hospital, Stoke-On-Trent, UK
| | - Stuart H Ralston
- Centre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, MRC Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.,Rheumatic Diseases Unit, NHS Lothian, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Paskins Z, Bullock L, Manning F, Bishop S, Campbell P, Cottrell E, Partner GP, Jinks C, Narayanasamy M, Scott IC, Sahota O, Ryan S. Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23:312. [PMID: 35366845 PMCID: PMC8976169 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05273-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Methods Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled. Results Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants’ attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication. Conclusions Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05273-1.
Collapse
|