Top

Osteoporosis International

Published in:

01-10-2020 | Osteoporosis | Original Article

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

Authors: P. van den Berg, P.M.M. van Haard, P.P. Geusens, J.P. van den Bergh, D.H. Schweitzer

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 10/2020

Abstract

Summary

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.

McLellan AR, Gallacher SJ, Fraser M, McQuillian C (2003 Dec) The fracture liaison service: success of a program for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 14(12):1028–1034CrossRef

Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ, McLellan AR, Stenmark J, Pierroz DD, Kyer C, Cooper C (2013) (IOF fracture working group). Capture the fracture®: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 24(8):2135–2152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2348-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lems WF, Dreinhöfer KE, Bischoff-Ferrari H, Blauth M, Czerwinski E, da Silva J, Herrera A, Hoffmeyer P, Kvien T, Maalouf G, Marsh D, Puget J, Puhl W, Poor G, Rasch L, Roux C, Schüler S, Seriolo B, Tarantino U, van Geel T, Woolf A, Wyers C, Geusens P (2017 May) EULAR/EFORT recommendations for management of patients older than 50 years with a fragility fracture and prevention of subsequent fractures. Ann Rheum Dis 76(5):802–810. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210289CrossRefPubMed

Eisman JA, Bogoch ER, Dell R, Harrington JT, McKinney RE Jr, McLellan A, Mitchell PJ, Silverman S, Singleton R, Siris E (2012 Oct) Making the first fracture the last fracture: ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention. J Bone Miner Res 27(10):2039–2046. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1698CrossRefPubMed

Blain H, Masud T, Dargent-Molina P, Martin FC, Rosendahl E, van der Velde N, Bousquet J, Benetos A, Cooper C, Kanis JA, Reginster JY, Rizzoli R, Cortet B, Barbagallo M, Dreinhöfer KE, Vellas B, Maggi S, Strandberg T (2016) EUGMS Falls and Fracture Interest Group; European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO), Osteoporosis Research and Information Group (GRIO), and International osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). A comprehensive fracture prevention strategy in older adults: the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS) statement. J Nutr Health Aging 20(6):647–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-016-0741-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

van den Berg P, Schweitzer DH, van Haard PM, van den Bergh JP, Geusens PP (2015 Sep) Meeting international standards of secondary fracture prevention: a survey on fracture liaison services in the Netherlands. Osteoporos Int 26(9):2257–2263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3117-yCrossRefPubMed

van den Berg P, van Haard PMM, Geusens PP, van den Bergh JP, Schweitzer DH (2019 May 25) Challenges and opportunities to improve fracture liaison service attendance: fracture registration and patient characteristics and motivations. Osteoporos Int 30:1597–1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05016-4CrossRefPubMed

Eekman DA, van Helden SH, Huisman AM, Verhaar HJ, Bultink IE, Geusens PP, Lips P, Lems WF (2014 Feb) Optimizing fracture prevention: the fracture liaison service, an observational study. Osteoporos Int 25(2):701–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2481-8CrossRefPubMed

Raybould G, Babatunde O, Evans AL, Jordan JL, Paskins Z (2018 May 8) Expressed information needs of patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures: a systematic review. Arch Osteoporos 13(1):55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0470-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Heijmans M, Waverijn G, Rademakers J, van der Vaart R, Rijken M (2015) Functional, communicative and critical health literacy of chronic disease patients and their importance for self-management. Patient Educ Couns 98(1):41–48CrossRef

11.

Giangregorio L, Thabane L, Cranney A, Adili A, de Beer J, Dolovich L, Adachi JD, Papaioannou A (2010) Osteoporosis knowledge among individuals with recent fragility fracture. Orthop Nurs;29(2):99–107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/NOR.0b013e3181d2436c. PMID: 20335769

12.

Grover ML, Edwards FD, Chang YH, Cook CB, Behrens MC, Dueck AC (2014) Fracture risk perception study: patient self-perceptions of bone health often disagree with calculated fracture risk. Womens Health Issues;24(1):e69–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2013.11.007. PMID: 24439949

13.

Alami S, Hervouet L, Poiraudeau S, Briot K, Roux C (2016) One barriers to effective postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment: a qualitative study of patients’ and practitioners’ views. PLoS One;11(6):e0158365. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158365

14.

Ong T, Tan W, Marshall L, Sahota O (2015 Feb) The relationship between socioeconomic status and fracture in a fracture clinic setting: data from the Nottingham Fracture Liaison Service. Injury. 46(2):366–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.002CrossRefPubMed

15.

Boudreau DM, Yu O, Balasubramanian A, Wirtz H, Grauer A, Crittenden DB, Scholes D (2017 Aug) A survey of women’s awareness of and reasons for lack of postfracture osteoporotic care. J Am Geriatr Soc 65(8):1829–1835. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14921CrossRefPubMed

16.

Besser SJ, Anderson JE, Weinman J (2012) How do osteoporosis patients perceive their illness and treatment? Implications for clinical practice. Arch Osteoporos;7:115–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-012-0089-9

17.

Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO (2011) Richtlijn osteoporose en fractuurpreventie. www.diliguide.nl/document/1015/file/pdf/. (Dutch) Assessed 14-02-2018

18.

https://chipsoft.com/?Source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Echipsoft%2Enl%2F. Assessed 14-02-2018

19.

Warriner A ea. Minor, major, low-trauma, and high-trauma fractures: what are the subsequent fracture risks and how do they vary?. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2011 Sep;9(3):122–128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-011-0064-1

20.

Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JMJ (2010 Jun) The Tilburg frailty indicator: psychometric properties. Am Med Dir Assoc 11(5):344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2009.11.003CrossRef

21.

https://www.vmszorg.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/web_2009.0104_praktijkgids_kwetsbare_ouderen.pdf (Dutch) assessed 30-12-2018

22.

Van der Kallen J, Giles M, Cooper K, Gill K, Parker V, Tembo A, Major G, Ross L, Carter J (2014 Feb) A fracture prevention service reduces further fractures two years after incident minimal trauma fracture. Int J Rheum Dis 17(2):195–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.12101CrossRefPubMed

23.

Huntjens KM, van Geel TA, van den Bergh JP, van Helden S, Willems P, Winkens B, Eisman JA, Geusens PP, Brink PR (2014) Fracture liaison service: impact on subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidence and mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(4):e29. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00223CrossRefPubMed

24.

Andreasen C, Solberg LB, Basso T, Borgen TT, Dahl C, Wisløff T, Hagen G, Apalset EM, Gjertsen JE, Figved W, Hübschle LM, Stutzer JM, Elvenes J, Joakimsen RM, Syversen U, Eriksen EF, Nordsletten L, Frihagen F, Omsland TK, Bjørnerem Å (2018) Effect of a fracture liaison service on the rate of subsequent fracture among patients with a fragility fracture in the Norwegian Capture the Fracture Initiative (NoFRACT): a trial protocol. JAMA Netw Open 1(8):e185701. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5701CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Vranken L, Wyers CE, van den Bergh JPW, Geusens PPMM (2017 Sep) The phenotype of patients with a recent fracture: a literature survey of the fracture liaison service. Calcif Tissue Int 101(3):248–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-017-0284-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Characterization of fracture liaison service non-responders after invitation by home visits and questionnaires
Authors: P. van den Berg
P.M.M. van Haard
P.P. Geusens
J.P. van den Bergh
D.H. Schweitzer
Publication date: 01-10-2020
Publisher: Springer London
Keywords: Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis
Published in: Osteoporosis International / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05442-9

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Few fragility fracture patients perceive that their bone health is affected by their comorbidities and medications

Adjusting conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the recency of sentinel fractures

Physical activity, sedentary time, and longitudinal bone strength in adolescent girls

High fracture risk patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis should get an anabolic treatment first

FRAX score and recent fall history predict the incidence for sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults: a prospective cohort study

Reference values and clinical predictors of bone strength for HR-pQCT-based distal radius and tibia strength assessments in women and men