Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Osteoporosis International
Published in: Osteoporosis International 12/2012

01-12-2012 | Original Article

Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture—a new understanding based on fracture patients’ communication

Authors: J. E. M. Sale, M. A. Gignac, L. Frankel, G. Hawker, D. Beaton, V. Elliot-Gibson, E. Bogoch

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 12/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

We examined patients’ communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not connect fractures to bone health. The term “fragility” fracture was a misnomer to patients who perceived the event as physically and emotionally traumatic. Improved communication about such fractures could facilitate awareness of bone health.

Introduction

We examined patients’ communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not perceive the connection between their fracture and low bone mass.

Methods

A descriptive phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. During face-to-face interviews, the participants described the experience of their fracture in detail and the circumstances surrounding the fracture. Data analysis was guided by Giorgi’s methodology. English-speaking male and female patients aged 65+ years and “high” risk for future fracture were eligible and screened for osteoporosis through an established screening program at an urban teaching hospital.

Results

We recruited 30 participants (9 males, 21 females), aged 65–88, who presented with a hip (n = 11), wrist (n = 11), shoulder (n = 6), or other (n = 2) fracture. Ten of the 30 fractures occurred inside the home and the remaining fractures occurred outside the home. Sustaining a fragility fracture was perceived as a traumatic event, both physically and emotionally. In general, participants used forceful, action-oriented words and referred to hard surfaces to describe the experience. Explanations for the fracture, other than bone quality, were often reported, especially that falls were “freak” or “fluke” events. Patients who sustained a fracture under more mundane circumstances seemed more likely to perceive a connection between the fracture and their bone health.

Conclusions

The term fragility fracture was a misnomer for many older adults. By reexamining how this term is communicated to fracture patients, health care providers may better facilitate patients’ awareness of bone health.
Literature
1.
World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO Technical Report Series, Geneva
2.
Barrett-Connor E, Sajjan SG, Siris ES, Miller PD, Chen Y-T, Markson LE (2008) Wrist fracture as a predictor of future fractures in younger versus older postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment (NORA). Osteoporos Int 19:607–613PubMedCrossRef
3.
Berry SD, Samelson EJ, Hannan MT, McLean RR, Lu M, Cupples LA et al (2007) Second hip fracture in older men and women: the Framingham Study. Arch Intern Med 167(18):1971–1976PubMedCrossRef
4.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, De LC, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P et al (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35(2):375–382PubMedCrossRef
5.
Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA, Petersen KMA, Lagendyk LE (2004) After the fall: women’s views of fractures in relation to bone health at midlife. Women Health 39(2):47–62PubMedCrossRef
6.
Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA (2003) Breaking—bad news: women’s experiences of fractures at midlife. Can J Public Health 94(6):427–430PubMed
7.
Giangregorio L, Dolovich L, Cranney A et al (2009) Osteoporosis risk perceptions among pateints who have sustained a fragility fracture. Patient Educ Couns 74:213–220PubMedCrossRef
8.
Sale JEM, Beaton DE, Sujic R, Bogoch ER (2010) “If it was osteoporosis, I would have really hurt myself”. Ambiguity about osteoporosis and osteoporosis care despite a screening program to educate fracture patients. J Eval Clin Pract 16(3):590–596PubMed
9.
Sale JEM, Beaton D, Fraenkel L, Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch E (2010) The BMD muddle: the disconnect between bone densitometry results and perception of bone health. J Clin Densitom 13(4):370–378PubMedCrossRef
10.
Siris ES, Harris ST, Rosen CJ et al (2006) Adherence to biophosphonates therapy and fracture rates in osteoporotic women: relationship to vertebral and nonvertebral fractures from 2 US claims databases. Mayo Clin Proc 81(8):1013–1022PubMedCrossRef
11.
Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Cranney A, Zytaruk N, Adachi JD (2006) Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon. Semin Arthritis Rheum 35:293–305PubMedCrossRef
12.
Rabenda V, Vanoverloop J, Fabri V, Mertens R, Sumkay R, Vannecke C et al (2008) Low incidence of anti-osteoporosis treatment after hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 90(10):2142–2148CrossRef
13.
Becker MH (1974) The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ Monogr 2:324–508
14.
Becker MH, Maiman LA (1975) Sociobehavioral determinants of compliance with health and medical care recommendations. Med Care 13(1):10–24PubMedCrossRef
15.
Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1983) Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 51:390–395PubMedCrossRef
16.
Tischler L, Hobson S (2005) Fear of falling: a qualitative study among community-dwelling older adults. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr 23(4):37–53CrossRef
17.
Lee F, Mackenzie L, James C (2008) Perceptions of older people living in the community about their fear of falling. Disabil Rehabil 30(23):1803–1811PubMedCrossRef
18.
Gray-Miceli D, Johnson J, Strumpf N (2005) A stepwise approach to a comprehensive post-fall assessment. Ann Long Term Care 13(12):16–24
19.
Yardley L, Donovan-Hall M, Francis K, Todd C, Yardley L, Donovan-Hall M et al (2006) Older people’s views of advice about falls prevention: a qualitative study. Health Educ Res 21(4):508–517PubMedCrossRef
20.
Kampa RJ, Pang J, Gleeson R (2006) Broken bones and fractures—an audit of patients’ perceptions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 88:663–666PubMedCrossRef
21.
Morse JM (1994) Designing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 220–235
22.
Polkinghorne DE (1989) Phenomenological research methods. In: Valle RS, Halling S (eds) Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology. Plenum, New York, pp 41–60CrossRef
23.
Giorgi A (2009) The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: a modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh
24.
Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame H, Hodsman A, Josse RG, Khan A et al (2005) Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J 56(3):178–188PubMed
25.
Bogoch ER, Elliot-Gibson V, Beaton DE, Jamal SA, Josse RG, Murray TM (2006) Effective initiation of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment for patients with a fragility fracture in an orthopaedic environment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(1):25–34PubMedCrossRef
26.
Kvale S (1996) Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage, Thousand Oaks
27.
Giorgi A (2008) Concerning a serious misunderstanding of the essence of the phenomenological method in psychology. J Phenomenol Psychol 39:33–58CrossRef
28.
Wertz FJ (2005) Phenomenological research methods for counseling psychology. J Counsel Psychol 52(2):167–177CrossRef
29.
Moustakas C (1994) Phenomenological research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks
30.
31.
Nvivo [computer program]. Victoria, Australia: Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd.; 2008.
32.
Giorgi A (1989) Some theoretical and practical issues regarding the psychological phenomenological method. Saybrook Review 7:71–85
33.
Giorgi A (1997) The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. J Phenomenol Psychol 28:235–260CrossRef
34.
Creswell JW (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Sage, Thousand Oaks
35.
Simpson JM, Darwin C, Marsh N, Simpson JM, Darwin C, Marsh N (2003) What are older people prepared to do to avoid falling? A qualitative study in London. Br J Community Nurs 8(4):152–159PubMed
36.
Braun BL, Braun BL (1998) Knowledge and perception of fall-related risk factors and fall-reduction techniques among community-dwelling elderly individuals. Phys Ther 78(12):1262–1276PubMed
37.
Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA, O’Brien MD, Tink W (2007) The importance of communication in secondary fragility fracture treatment and prevention. Osteoporos Int 18:159–166PubMedCrossRef
38.
Sale JE, Gignac M, Hawker G (2006) How “bad” does the pain have to be? A qualitative study examining adherence to pain medication in older adults with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 55(2):272–278PubMedCrossRef
39.
Barker KL, Reid M, Minns Lowe CJ, Barker KL, Reid M, Minns Lowe CJ (2009) Divided by a lack of common language? A qualitative study exploring the use of language by health professionals treating back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:123PubMedCrossRef
40.
Maclean N, Pound P, Wolfe C, Rudd A, Maclean N, Pound P et al (2002) The concept of patient motivation: a qualitative analysis of stroke professionals' attitudes. Stroke 33(2):444–448PubMedCrossRef
41.
Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (2000) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, London
42.
McBride CM, Emmons KM, Lipkus IM (2003) Understanding the potential of teachable moments: the case of smoking cessation. Health Educ Res 18(2):156–170PubMedCrossRef
43.
Papaioannou A, Leslie WD, Morin S, Atkinson S, Brown J, Cheung AM, et al. (2010) Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 2010;doi:10.​1503/​cmaj.​100771.
Metadata
Title
Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture—a new understanding based on fracture patients’ communication
Authors
J. E. M. Sale
M. A. Gignac
L. Frankel
G. Hawker
D. Beaton
V. Elliot-Gibson
E. Bogoch
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 12/2012
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-1914-0

Other articles of this Issue 12/2012

Osteoporosis International 12/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Incidence of fractures of the femur, including subtrochanteric, up to 8 years since initiation of oral bisphosphonate therapy: a register-based cohort study using the US MarketScan claims databases

Original Article

Burden of pelvis fracture: a population-based study of incidence, hospitalisation and mortality

Original Article

Age-related changes in proximal humerus bone health in healthy, white males

Original Article

Delay from fracture to hospital admission: a new risk factor for hip fracture mortality?

Letter to the Editor

Comment on Compston: Pathophysiology of atypical femoral fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw

Case Report

Teriparatide, a nonsurgical solution for femoral nonunion? A report of three cases