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 7/2019

01-07-2019 | Osteoporosis | Review Article

Evidence of patient beliefs, values, and preferences is not provided in osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines

Authors: J.E.M. Sale, A. Marwah, F. Naeem, W. Yu, L. Meadows

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 7/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

We examined how patient beliefs, values, and preferences (BVPs) were included and conceptualized in international osteoporosis guidelines. The majority of guidelines did not mention BVPs. When mentioned, BVPs were conceptualized as preference for one medication over another. A broader conceptualization and inclusion of BVPs should be incorporated in osteoporosis guidelines.

Introduction

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which osteoporosis guidelines reflected patients’ beliefs, values, and preferences (BVPs); (2) how BVPs were conceptualized; and (3) the methods used to elicit BVPs in the references cited by the guidelines.

Methods

We conducted a document analysis of English-language international osteoporosis guidelines based on the International Osteoporosis Foundation website. We examined each guideline and extracted all instances of statements pertaining to BVPs. The statements were reviewed by two independent researchers. Discrepancies in data extraction were resolved by the first author. We developed categories based on five common elements that represented the BVP statements.

Results

Twenty-seven of 70 (39%) guidelines included 95 statements about patient BVPs. Of the 95 statements, 32 statements (14 guidelines) were classified under BVP related to the choice of pharmacotherapy or general treatment, 10 (7 guidelines) under BVP related to adherence to pharmacotherapy or treatment in general, 5 (5 guidelines) under BVP related to financial costs and benefits, 43 (19 guidelines) under other BVP mentioned but not supported by a reference to a primary study or systematic review, and 5 (3 guidelines) under other BVP mentioned and supported by at least one reference to a primary study or systematic review. Twenty-nine references were cited to reflect the BVPs mentioned, including an editorial and quantitative studies.

Conclusions

Twenty-seven (39%) of the guidelines included mention of patients’ BVPs. In 19 guidelines, the importance of BVPs was mentioned but these statements were not supported by references to a primary study or systematic review. BVPs were most often (14 guidelines) conceptualized as preference for one medication over another. We suggest that qualitative data be included as evidence of BVPs in guidelines.
Literature
1.
2.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what is is and what it isn’t: it’s about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence. BMJ 312(7023):71–72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Excellence NIfHaC (2014) Developing NICE guidelines: the manual, pp 1–234
4.
Gill G (2001) Going Dutch? How to make clinical guidelines work: an innovative report from Holland. Clin Med 1(4):307–308CrossRef
5.
James PA, Cowan TM, Graham RP (1998) Patient-centered clinical decisions and their impact on physician adherence to clinical guidelines. J Fam Pract 46(4):311–318PubMed
6.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1997) Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 44(5):681–692CrossRefPubMed
7.
Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ et al (2000) Users’ guide to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users’ guides to patient care. JAMA 284(10):1290–1296CrossRefPubMed
8.
Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Straus S, Haynes B, Guyatt G (2008) Decision making and the patient. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ (eds.) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. 22:643–661. New York: The MacGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
9.
Group PCR (2008) Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ 337:a1864CrossRef
10.
Purnell TS, Joy S, Little E, Bridges JF, Maruthur N (2014) Patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 37(7):2055–2062CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Joy S, Purnell T, Little E, Bridges J (2013) Patient preferences for the treatment of type-2 diabetes: a scoping review. PharmacoEconomics 31:877–892CrossRefPubMed
12.
Utens CMA, Dirksen CD, Weijden TV, Joore MA (2016) How to integrate research evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guidelines: a qualitative study among Dutch stakeholders. Health Policy 120(1):120–128CrossRefPubMed
13.
Breejen EM, Hermens RP, Galama WH, Willemsen WN, Kremer JA, Nelen WL (2016) Added value of involving patients in the first step of multidisciplinary guideline development: a qualitative interview study among infertile patients. Int J Qual Health Care 28(3):299–305CrossRef
14.
Tong A, Tunnicliffe DJ, Lopez-Vargas P et al (2016) Identifying and integrating consumer perspectives in clinical practice guidelines on autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease. Nephrology 21(2):122–132CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Cooper C et al (2016) A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX: a report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation. Arch Osteoporos 11(1):25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11657-016-0278-z
16.
Wang X, Chen Y, Yao L et al (2018) Reporting of declarations and conflicts of interest in WHO guidelines can be further improved. J Clin Epidemiol 98:1–8CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ospina NS, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Brito JP, Young WF, Montori VM (2015) Is the endocrine research pipeline broken? A systematic evluation of the Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines and trial registration. BMC Med 13:187CrossRef
18.
O'Leary Z (2004) The essential guide to doing research. Sage Publications, London
19.
Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ (2008) User’s guide to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York
20.
21.
22.
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (2010) Clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men. 1–83
23.
Ip TP, Cheung SK, Cheung TC et al (2013) The Osteoporosis Society of Hong Kong (OSHK): 2013 OSHK guideline for clinical management of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 19(Suppl 2):1–40PubMed
24.
25.
Hough S, Ascott-Evans B, Brown S et al (2010) NOFSA guideline for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. J Endocrinol Metab Diabetes S Afr 15(3):1–188
26.
27.
Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, et al. (2010) Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: Background and technical report. Toronto, 1–89
28.
29.
30.
31.
(SIBOMM) ISoOaMM (2009) IBEROAMERICAN CONSENSUS ON OSTEOPOROSIS SIBOMM 2009: Osteoporosis: prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.1–49
32.
Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H et al (2013) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 24(1):23–57CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
35.
Osteologie D (2011) DVO guideline 2009 for prevention, diagnosis and therapy of osteoporosis in adults. Osteologie 20:55–74CrossRef
36.
Makras P, Vaiopoulos G, Lyritis GP (2012) 2011 guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in Greece. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 12(1):38–42PubMed
37.
Rossini M, Adami S, Bertoldo F et al (2016) Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of osteoporosis 2016. Reumatismo 68(1):1–39CrossRefPubMed
38.
Network SIG (2009) Management of hip fracture in older people. 1–56
39.
González-Macías J, del Pino-Montes J, Olmos J, Nogués X (2015) Clinical practice guidelines for postmenopausal, glucocorticoid-induced and male osteoporosis. Rev Clin Esp 215(9):515–526CrossRefPubMed
40.
Excellence NIfHaC (2008) Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women: technology appraisal guidance. United Kingdom. 1–87
41.
Excellence NIfHaC (2008) Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. 1–82
42.
Meeta DL, Agarwal N, Vaze N, Shah R, Malik S (2013) Clinical practice guidelines on menopause: an executive summary and recommendations. J Mid-life Health 4(2):77–106CrossRef
43.
Meeta S, Harinarayan CV, Marwah R, Sahay R, Kalra S, Babhulkar S (2013) Clinical practice guidelines on postmenopausal osteoporosis: an executive summary and recommendations. J Mid-life Health 4(2):107FNx01 Copyright 2013 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd. (HTML document version posted as of May 10, 2018)
44.
Ministry of Health S. Osteoporosis (2008) MOH Clinical Practice guidelines. 1–94
45.
Maalouf G, Gannage-Yared MH, Ezzedine J et al (2007) Middle East and North Africa consensus on osteoporosis. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 7(2):131–143PubMed
46.
Maalouf G, Bachour F, Issa M, Yazbeck P, Maalouf N, Daher C, Yaghi Y, Eid R (2012) Guidelines for fragility fractures in Lebanon. J Med Liban 60(3):153–158PubMed
47.
Kendler DL, Bessette L, Hill CD et al (2010) Preference and satisfaction with a 6-month subcutaneous injection versus a weekly tablet for treatment of low bone mass. Osteoporos Int 21:837–846CrossRefPubMed
48.
Cranney AB, Coyle D, Hopman WM, Hum V, Power B, Tugwell PS (2005) Prospective evaluation of preferences and quality of life in women with hip fractures. J Rheumatol 32:2393–2399PubMed
49.
Freemantle N, Satram-Hoang S, Tang E-T et al (2012) Final results of the DAPS (Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction) study: a 24-month, randomized, crossover comparison with alendronate in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 23:317–326CrossRefPubMed
50.
Selva A, Sanabria AJ, Pequeno S et al (2017) Incorporating patients’ views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents. J Clin Epidemiol 88:102–112CrossRefPubMed
51.
Krahn M, Naglie G (2008) The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA 300(4):436–438CrossRefPubMed
52.
Grimen H (2009) Power, trust, and risk: some reflections on an absent issue. Med Anthropol Q 23(1):16–33CrossRefPubMed
53.
Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG (2005) The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research? Soc Sci Med 60:2575–2584CrossRefPubMed
54.
Otte I, Salloch S, Reinacher-Schick A, Vollmann J (2017) Treatment recommendations within the leeway of clinical guidelines: a qualitative interview study on oncologists’ clinical deliberation. BMC Cancer 17:780CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
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
56.
Sale J, Gignac M, Hawker G et al (2011) Decision to take osteoporosis medication in patients who have had a fracture and are ‘high’ risk for future fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:92CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Sale JEM, Hawker G, Cameron C, Bogoch E, Jain R, Beaton D, Jaglal S, Funnell L (2015) Perceived messages about bone health after a fracture are not consistent across health care providers. Rheumatol Int 35(1):97–103CrossRefPubMed
58.
59.
Rittenmeyer L, Huffman D, Alagna M, Moore E (2016) The experience of adults who choose watchful waiting or active surveillance as an approach to medical treatment: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 14(2):174–255CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evidence of patient beliefs, values, and preferences is not provided in osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines
Authors
J.E.M. Sale
A. Marwah
F. Naeem
W. Yu
L. Meadows
Publication date
01-07-2019
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-04913-y

Other articles of this Issue 7/2019

Osteoporosis International 7/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Lipid profiles as potential mediators linking body mass index to osteoporosis among Chinese adults: the Henan Rural Cohort Study

Review Article

Prognostic factors of in-hospital complications after hip fracture surgery: a scoping review

Correction

Correction to: Hypophosphatasia: Canadian update on diagnosis and management

Original Article

Higher rates of osteoporosis treatment initiation and persistence in patients with newly diagnosed vertebral fracture when introduced in inpatients than later in outpatients

Correction

Correction to: Rehmanniae Radix Preparata suppresses bone loss and increases bone strength through interfering with canonical Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway in OVX rats

Original Article

Discovery of potential biomarkers for osteoporosis using LC-MS/MS metabolomic methods