Top

Osteoporosis International

Published in:

01-07-2015 | Original Article

District nurses’ perceptions of osteoporosis management: a qualitative study

Authors: A. Claesson, E. Toth-Pal, P. Piispanen, H. Salminen

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 7/2015

Abstract

Summary

Underdiagnosis of osteoporosis is common. This study investigated Swedish district nurses’ perceptions of osteoporosis management. They perceived the condition as having low priority, and the consequences of this perception were insufficient awareness of the condition and perceptions of bone-specific medication as unsafe. They perceived, though, competency when working with fall prevention.

Introduction

Undertreatment of patients with osteoporosis is common. Sweden’s medical care strategy dictates prioritisation of various conditions; while guidelines exist, osteoporosis is not prioritised. The aim of this study was to investigate district nurses’ perceptions of osteoporosis management within Sweden’s primary health care system.

Methods

Four semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with 13 female district nurses. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

The overall theme was perceiving osteoporosis management as ambiguous. The themes were perceiving barriers and perceiving opportunities. These subthemes were linked to perceiving barriers: (i) insufficient procedures, lack of time and not aware of the condition; (ii) insufficient knowledge about diagnosis and about fracture risk assessment tools; (iii) low priority condition and unclear responsibility for osteoporosis management; and (iv) bone-specific medication was sometimes perceived to be unsafe. These subthemes were linked to perceiving opportunities: (i) professional competency when discussing fall prevention in home visit programs, (ii) willingness to learn more about osteoporosis management, (iii) collaboration with other professionals and (iv) willingness to identify individuals at high risk of fracture.

Conclusions

Osteoporosis was reported, by the district nurses, to be a low-priority condition with consequences being unawareness of the condition, insufficient knowledge about bone-specific medications, fracture risk assessment tools and procedures. These may be some of the explanations for the undertreatment of osteoporosis. At the same time, the district nurses described competency performing the home visits, which emerged as an optimal opportunity to discuss fall prevention and to introduce FRAX with the aim to identify individuals at high risk of fracture.

Available only for authorised users

Svedbom A et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: a compendium of country-specific reports. EU Review Panel of IOF. Arch Osteoporos 8(1-2):137. doi:10.1007/s11657-013-0137-0, ReviewPubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Ivergård M et al (2013) Epidemiology and economic burden of osteoporosis in Sweden. Arch Osteoporos 8:137PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Pham AN et al (2011) Cost-effectiveness of oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis at different ages and levels of life expectancy. J Am Geriatr Soc 59(9):1642–1649. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03571.x PubMedCrossRef

Brown JP, Josse RG (2002) for the Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada: 2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada (revised, August 26, 2004). CMAJ 167(10):S1–S34PubMedCentralPubMed

Papaioannou A et al (2004) The osteoporosis care gap in Canada. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6:5–11

Jaglal SB et al (2003) Information needs in the management of osteoporosis in family practice: an illustration of the failure of the current guideline implementation process. Osteoporos Int 14:672–676PubMedCrossRef

Kastner M et al (2010) Development of a prototype clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management: a qualitative study of focus groups. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 10:40PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Cooper MS et al (2012) Cost-effectiveness of the Concord Minimal Trauma Fracture Liasion service, a prospective, controlled fracture prevention study. Osteoporos Int 23:97–107PubMedCrossRef

Åkesson K et al (2013) Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 24:2135–2152PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

10.

Kanis JA et al (2008) FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 19(4):385–397PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

11.

Ström O et al. (2013) Intervention thresholds for denosumab in the UK using a FRAX-based cost-effectiveness analysis

12.

Kanis JA et al (2010) Development and the use of FRAX® in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 21(suppl 2):S407–S413PubMedCrossRef

13.

Vered I et al (2008) Nurses’ knowledge and perceptions about osteoporosis: a questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 45:847–854PubMedCrossRef

14.

Berarducci A et al (2002) The impact of osteoporosis continuing education on nurses’ knowledge and attitudes. J Contin Educ Nurs 33(5):210–216, quiz 238-9PubMed

15.

Hunt AH et al (1998) Assessment of learning needs of registered nurses for osteoporosis education. Orthop Nurs 17(6):55–60PubMedCrossRef

16.

Giangregorio L et al (2007) Osteoporosis knowledge and information needs in healthcare professionals caring for patients with fragility fractures. Orthop Nurs Issue 26(1):27–35

17.

Malterud K (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 358(9280):483–488PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hoang-Kim A et al (2014) Understanding osteoporosis and fractures: an introduction to use of qualitative research. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:207–217PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hjalmarson HV et al (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):236–245. doi:10.1080/17482620701436939 CrossRef

20.

Hansen C et al (2014) Women’s experiences of their osteoporosis diagnosis at the time of the diagnosis and 6 months later: a phenomenological hermeneutic study. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 9:22438. doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.22438 PubMedCrossRef

21.

Unson CG et al (2003) Nonadherence and osteoporosis treatment preferences of older women: a qualitative study. J Womens Health 12(10):1037–1045CrossRef

22.

Iversen MD et al (2011) Factors affecting adherence to osteoporosis medications: a focus group approach examining viewpoints of patients and providers. J Geriatr Phys Ther 34(2):72–81PubMedCentralPubMed

23.

Otmar R et al (2012) General medical practitioners’ knowledge and belief about osteoporosis and its investigation and management. Arch Osteoporos 7:107–114PubMedCrossRef

24.

Allin S et al (2014) Fracture risk assessment after BMD examination: whose job is it, anyway? Osteoporos Int 25:1445–1453PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

Bayliss M et al (2013) A conceptual and disease model framework for osteoporotic kyphosis. Osteoporos Int 24:2423–2432PubMedCrossRef

26.

Jaakkola E (2007) Physicians’ views on the influence of patient participation on treatment decisions—an explorative study. Health Serv Manag Res 20(3):174–182CrossRef

27.

Richardson JC et al (2004) GPs’ perceptions of the role of DEXA scanning: an exploratory study. Fam Pract 21(1):51–53PubMedCrossRef

28.

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Research Psychol 3:77–101CrossRef

29.

Twohig PL, Putnam W (2002) Group interviews in primary care research: advancing the state of the art or ritualized research? Fam Pract 19(3):278–284PubMedCrossRef

30.

Gaboury I et al (2013) Partnership for fragility care provision and prevention program (P4Bones): study protocol for a secondary fracture prevention pragmatic controlled trial. Implement Sci 8:10PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

31.

Huss A et al (2008) Multidimensional preventive home visit programs for community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 63(3):298–307PubMedCrossRef

32.

Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurs Educ Today 24:105–112CrossRef

Title: District nurses’ perceptions of osteoporosis management: a qualitative study
Authors: A. Claesson
E. Toth-Pal
P. Piispanen
H. Salminen
Publication date: 01-07-2015
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: Osteoporosis International / Issue 7/2015
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3086-1

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

District nurses’ perceptions of osteoporosis management: a qualitative study

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2015

Hypophosphatemic osteomalacia: an unusual clinical presentation of multiple myeloma

Predictive ability of heel quantitative ultrasound for incident fractures: an individual-level meta-analysis

Vitamin D status in men with psoriatic arthritis: a case-control study

Endpoint comparison for bone mineral density measurements in North Central Cancer Treatment Group cancer clinical trials N02C1 and N03CC (Alliance)

Erratum to: Intraoperative detection of viable bone with fluorescence imaging using Visually Enhanced Lesion Scope in patients with bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: clinical and pathological evaluation

Association of polymorphisms in the beta-2 adrenergic receptor gene with fracture risk and bone mineral density