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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Archives of Osteoporosis
Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis 1/2014

01-12-2014 | Original Article

Women’s perspectives and experiences on screening for osteoporosis (Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, ROSE)

Authors: Mette Juel Rothmann, Lotte Huniche, Jette Ammentorp, Reinhard Barkmann, Claus C. Glüer, Anne Pernille Hermann

Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

This study aimed to investigate women’s perspectives and experiences with screening for osteoporosis. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted. Three main themes emerged: knowledge about osteoporosis, psychological aspects of screening, and moral duty. Generally, screening was accepted due to life experiences, self-perceived risk, and the preventive nature of screening.

Purpose

The risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation (ROSE) study is a randomized prospective population-based trial investigating the efficacy of a screening program to prevent fractures in women aged 65–80 years. It is recommended by the World Health Organization that a set of criteria are met before a screening program is implemented. This sub-study aims to investigate women’s perspectives and experiences with the ROSE screening program in relation to the patient-related criteria recommended by the World Health Organization.

Methods

A qualitative study was carried out involving 31 women by way of 8 focus group interviews and 11 individual interviews. Principles from critical psychology guided the analysis.

Results

Women’s perspectives and experiences with the screening program were described by three main themes: knowledge about osteoporosis, psychological aspects of screening, and moral duty. The women viewed the program in the context of their everyday life and life trajectories. Age, lifestyle, and knowledge about osteoporosis were important to how women ascribed meaning to the program, how they viewed the possibilities and limitations, and how they rationalized their actions and choices. The women displayed limited knowledge about osteoporosis and its risk factors. However, acceptance was based on prior experience, perceived risk, and evaluation of preventive measures. To be reassured or concerned by screening was described as important issues, as well as the responsibility for health-seeking behaviour.

Conclusion

In general, the women accepted the screening program. No major ethical reservations or adverse psychological consequences were detected. Only a minority of women declined screening participation due to a low perceived risk of osteoporosis.
Literature
1.
Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC (2010) The benefits and harms of screening for cancer with a focus on breast screening. Pol Arch Med Wewn 120:89–94PubMed
2.
Wilson JM, Jungner YG (1968) Principles and practice of mass screening for disease. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 65:281–393PubMed
3.
Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Dery V (2008) Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 86:317–319PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
Hugod C, Alban A, Dehlholm G, Fog J, Hørder M, Lynge E, Olesen F, Olsen J, Møller-Pedersen K, Worm-Petersen J (1990) Screening hvorfor—hvornår—hvordan
5.
Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2005) Osteoporosis is markedly underdiagnosed: a nationwide study from Denmark. Osteoporos Int 16:134–141PubMedCrossRef
6.
Johnell O, Kanis J (2005) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S3–S7PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, De LC, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, Kroger H, McCloskey EV, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35:375–382PubMedCrossRef
8.
Mossey JM, Mutran E, Knott K, Craik R (1989) Determinants of recovery 12 months after hip fracture: the importance of psychosocial factors. Am J Public Health 79:279–286PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Strom O, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA, Compston J, Cooper C, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B (2011) Osteoporosis: burden, health care provision and opportunities in the EU: a report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 6:59–155PubMedCrossRef
10.
Papaioannou A, Kennedy CC, Ioannidis G, Brown JP, Pathak A, Hanley DA, Josse RG, Sebaldt RJ, Olszynski WP, Tenenhouse A, Murray TM, Petrie A, Goldsmith CH, Adachi JD (2006) Determinants of health-related quality of life in women with vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:355–363PubMedCrossRef
11.
Petrella RJ, Payne M, Myers A, Overend T, Chesworth B (2000) Physical function and fear of falling after hip fracture rehabilitation in the elderly. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 79:154–160PubMedCrossRef
12.
Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2007) Increased mortality in patients with a hip fracture-effect of pre-morbid conditions and post-fracture complications. Osteoporos Int 18:1583–1593PubMedCrossRef
13.
Murad MH, Drake MT, Mullan RJ, Mauck KF, Stuart LM, Lane MA, Abu Elnour NO, Erwin PJ, Hazem A, Puhan MA, Li T, Montori VM (2012) Clinical review. Comparative effectiveness of drug treatments to prevent fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97:1871–1880PubMedCrossRef
14.
Reventlow SD (2007) Perceived risk of osteoporosis: restricted physical activities? Qualitative interview study with women in their sixties. Scand J Prim Health Care 25:160–165PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
Reventlow S, Bang H (2006) Brittle bones: ageing or threat of disease exploring women’s cultural models of osteoporosis. Scand J Public Health 34:320–326PubMedCrossRef
17.
Reventlow SD, Hvas L, Malterud K (2006) Making the invisible body visible. Bone scans, osteoporosis and women’s bodily experiences. Soc Sci Med 62:2720–2731PubMedCrossRef
18.
Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey EV (2009) Assessment of fracture risk. Eur J Radiol 71:392–397PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Maxwell J (2005) Qualitative research design. An interactive approach
21.
Morgan D (1997) Focus group as qualitative research. 2nd edn
22.
23.
Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW (2007) Focus groups theory and practice. 2nd edn
24.
Mørck LL, Huniche L (2006) Critical psychology in Danish context. Annual review of Critical Psychology:1–9
25.
Dreier O (2008) Psychotherapy in everyday life
26.
Jartoft V (1996) Kritisk psykologi en psykologi med fokus på subjektivitet og handling
27.
28.
Sujic R, Gignac MA, Cockerill R, Beaton DE (2011) A review of patient-centred post-fracture interventions in the context of theories of health behaviour change. Osteoporos Int 22:2213–2224PubMedCrossRef
29.
Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH (1988) Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ Q 15(2):175–183PubMedCrossRef
30.
Clarke LH, Griffin M (2008) Failing bodies: body image and multiple chronic conditions in later life. Qual Health Res 18:1084–1095PubMedCrossRef
31.
Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Thabane L, Debeer J, Cranney A, Dolovich L, Adili A, Adachi JD (2008) Do patients perceive a link between a fragility fracture and osteoporosis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:38PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
Gerend MA, Erchull MJ, Aiken LS, Maner JK (2006) Reasons and risk: factors underlying women’s perceptions of susceptibility to osteoporosis. Maturitas 55:227–237PubMedCrossRef
33.
Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA, Lagendyk LE, Petersen KM (2004) After the fall: women’s views of fractures in relation to bone health at midlife. Women Health 39:47–62PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
Rimes KA, Salkovskis PM (2002) Prediction of psychological reactions to bone density screening for osteoporosis using a cognitive-behavioral model of health anxiety. Behav Res Ther 40:359–381PubMedCrossRef
36.
Malterud K (2005) Qualitative methods in medical research—conditions, possibilities and challenges. Ugeskr Laeger 167:2377–2380PubMed
Metadata
Title
Women’s perspectives and experiences on screening for osteoporosis (Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, ROSE)
Authors
Mette Juel Rothmann
Lotte Huniche
Jette Ammentorp
Reinhard Barkmann
Claus C. Glüer
Anne Pernille Hermann
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Archives of Osteoporosis / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1862-3522
Electronic ISSN: 1862-3514
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-014-0192-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Archives of Osteoporosis 1/2014 Go to the issue

Review

Effect of a dedicated osteoporosis health professional on screening and treatment in outpatients presenting with acute low trauma non-hip fracture: a systematic review

Original Article

Current and future burden of incident hip fractures in New South Wales, Australia

Original Article

Bone fractures and feeling at risk for osteoporosis among women in Japan: patient characteristics and outcomes in the National Health and Wellness Survey

Original Article

Bone density in black and white South African women: contribution of ethnicity, body weight and lifestyle

Original Article

Risk factors of low vitamin D status in adolescent females in Kuwait: implications for high peak bone mass attainment

Case Report

Bilateral femoral neck insufficiency fractures secondary to vitamin D deficiency and concurrent corticosteroid use—a case report