Top

Osteoporosis International

Published in:

Open Access 01-08-2016 | Original Article

The development of a personalized patient education tool for decision making for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

Authors: M. Hiligsmann, G. Ronda, T. van der Weijden, A. Boonen

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 8/2016

Abstract

Summary

A personalized patient education tool for decision making (PET) for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis was developed by means of a systematic development approach. A prototype was constructed and refined by involving various professionals and patients. Professionals and patients expressed a positive attitude towards the use of the PET.

Introduction

The purpose was to systematically develop a paper-based personalized PET to assist postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in selecting a treatment in line with their personal values and preferences.

Methods

The development of the PET was based on a systematic process including scope, design, development of a prototype, and alpha testing among professionals and patients by semi-structured interviews.

Results

The design and development resulted in a four-page PET prototype together with a one-page fact sheet of the different drug options. The prototype PET provided the personal risk factors, the estimated individualized risk for a future major osteoporotic fracture and potential reduction with drugs, and a summary of advantages and disadvantages whether or not to start drugs. The drug fact sheet presents five attributes of seven drugs in a tabular format. The alpha testing with professionals resulted in some adaptations, e.g., inclusion of the possibility to calculate fracture risk based on various individual risk scoring methods. Important results from the alpha testing with patients were differences in the fracture risk percentage which was seen as worthwhile to start drugs, the importance of an overview of side effects, and of the timing of the PET into the patient pathway. All women indicated that the PET could be helpful for their decision to select a treatment.

Conclusion

Physicians and patients expressed a positive attitude towards the use of the proposed PET. Further research would be needed to test the effects of the PET on feasibility in clinical workflow and on patient outcomes.

Available only for authorised users

Crandall CJ, Newberry SJ, Diamant A, Lim YW, Gellad WF, Booth MJ et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 161(10):711–723CrossRefPubMed

Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY et al (2013) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 24(1):23–57CrossRefPubMed

Reginster JY (2011) Antifracture efficacy of currently available therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Drugs 71(1):65–78CrossRefPubMed

Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Gathon HJ, Ethgen O, Reginster JY (2010) Potential clinical and economic impact of nonadherence with osteoporosis medications. Calcif Tissue Int 86(3):202–210CrossRef

Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, Branda ME, Van Houten HK, Swiglo BA et al (2011) Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med 124(6):549–556CrossRefPubMed

Pencille LJ, Campbell ME, Van Houten HK, Shah ND, Mullan RJ, Swiglo BA et al (2009) Protocol for the Osteoporosis Choice trial. A pilot randomized trial of a decision aid in primary care practice. Trials 10:113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Scoville EA, Ponce de Leon Lovaton P, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, Montori VM (2011) Why do women reject bisphosphonates for osteoporosis? A videographic study. PLoS One 6(4):e18468CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Giles K (2015) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Int J Evid Based Healthcare 13(2):112–113CrossRef

Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB et al (2014) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD001431PubMed

10.

Stiggelbout AM, Van der Weijden T, De Wit MP, Frosch D, Legare F, Montori VM et al (2012) Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ 344:e256CrossRefPubMed

11.

Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CP, de Jong CA (2008) Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom 77(4):219–226CrossRefPubMed

12.

Stalmeier PF (2011) Adherence and decision AIDS: a model and a narrative review. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 31(1):121–129CrossRef

13.

Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E (2008) FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 19(4):385–397CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, Goemaere S, Reginster JY et al (2014) Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Arthritis Res Ther 16(1):R36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T et al (2013) Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Preference Adhes 7:133–139CrossRef

16.

Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T (2013) A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13(Suppl 2):S2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand MA, Sivell S, Stacey D et al (2013) Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med Decis Mak 34(6):699–710CrossRef

18.

Volk RJ, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Stacey D, Elwyn G (2013) Ten years of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration: evolution of the core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13(Suppl 2):S1CrossRef

19.

Elwyn G, Lloyd A, Joseph-Williams N, Cording E, Thomson R, Durand MA et al (2013) Option Grids: shared decision making made easier. Patient Educ Couns 90(2):207–212CrossRefPubMed

20.

Shepherd HL, Barratt A, Trevena LJ, McGeechan K, Carey K, Epstein RM et al (2011) Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options: a cross-over trial. Patient Educ Couns 84(3):379–385CrossRefPubMed

21.

Nederlandse Vereniging voor Reumatologie (2011) Richtlijn Osteoporose en Fractuurpreventie: derde herziening. Available from http://www.platformouderenzorg.nl/uploads/files/guidelines/osteoporoseenfractuurpreventie.pdf

22.

Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A (2010) The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun 15(5):487–501CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Waldron CA, van der Weijden T, Ludt S, Gallacher J, Elwyn G (2011) What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 82(2):169–181CrossRefPubMed

24.

Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA et al (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14(4):403–413CrossRefPubMed

25.

van Geel TA, Nguyen ND, Geusens PP, Center JR, Nguyen TV, Dinant GJ et al (2011) Development of a simple prognostic nomogram for individualising 5-year and 10-year absolute risks of fracture: a population-based prospective study among postmenopausal women. Ann Rheum Dis 70(1):92–97CrossRefPubMed

26.

Rizzoli R, Reginster JY, Boonen S, Breart G, Diez-Perez A, Felsenberg D et al (2011) Adverse reactions and drug-drug interactions in the management of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 89(2):91–104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

van den Bergh JP, van Geel TA, Lems WF, Geusens PP (2010) Assessment of individual fracture risk: FRAX and beyond. Curr Osteoporos Rep 8(3):131–137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

van Geel TA, Eisman JA, Geusens PP, van den Bergh JP, Center JR, Dinant GJ (2014) The utility of absolute risk prediction using FRAX(R) and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator in daily practice. Maturitas 77(2):174–179CrossRefPubMed

29.

Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, Musila NR, Wensing M, Godycki-Cwirko M et al (2013) A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci 8:35CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C, Mann M, Edwards AG, Clay C et al (2013) “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13(Suppl 2):S14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Trewby PN, Reddy AV, Trewby CS, Ashton VJ, Brennan G, Inglis J (2002) Are preventive drugs preventive enough? A study of patients’ expectation of benefit from preventive drugs. Clin Med 2(6):527–533CrossRef

Title: The development of a personalized patient education tool for decision making for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis
Authors: M. Hiligsmann
G. Ronda
T. van der Weijden
A. Boonen
Publication date: 01-08-2016
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: Osteoporosis International / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3555-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The development of a personalized patient education tool for decision making for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Re: Errors in the NOF meta-analysis of calcium and vitamin D supplements

Vertebral body morphology is associated with incident lumbar vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women. The OFELY study

Measuring muscle and bone in individuals with neurologic impairment; lessons learned about participant selection and pQCT scan acquisition and analysis

Current trends and future projections of hip fracture in South Korea using nationwide claims data

Quality of life, resource use, and costs related to hip fracture in Estonia

Full 24-month treatment course with daily teriparatide: a mechanistic insight