Skip to main content
Log in

Differing perceptions of intervention thresholds for fracture risk: a survey of patients and doctors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

This survey suggests that patients are prepared to accept higher absolute fracture risk than doctors, before considering pharmacological therapy to be justified. Patients require that drug treatments confer substantial fracture risk reductions in order to consider long-term therapy.

Introduction

Absolute fracture risk estimates are now incorporated into osteoporosis treatment guidelines. At present, little is known about how patients regard fracture risk and its management. We set out to describe and compare the views of patients and doctors on the level of fracture risk at which drug treatment is justified.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 114 patients referred for bone density measurement and 161 doctors whose practice includes management of osteoporosis. Participants were asked about fracture risk thresholds for pharmacological intervention.

Results

The absolute risk of both major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture at which drug treatment was considered by patients to be justifiable was higher than that reported by doctors [major osteoporotic fracture, median (interquartile range): patients, 50% (25 to 60); doctors, 10% (10 to 20); P < 0.0001; hip fracture: patients, 50% (25 to 60); doctors, 10% (5 to 20); P < 0.0001]. Patients required that a drug provide a median 50% reduction in relative risk of fracture in order to consider taking long-term therapy, irrespective of the treatment mode or dosing schedule. Among doctors, there was an inverse relationship between the number of osteoporosis consultations conducted each month and threshold of risk for recommending drug treatment (r = −0.22 and r = −0.29 for major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, respectively, P < 0.01 for both)

Conclusions

Patients are prepared to accept higher absolute fracture risk than doctors, before considering pharmacological therapy to be justified. Patients require that drug treatments confer substantial fracture risk reductions in order to consider long-term therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sambrook P, Cooper C (2006) Osteoporosis. Lancet 367:2010–2018

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC (2011) Osteoporosis: now and the future. Lancet 377:1276–1287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nguyen ND, Frost SA, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2008) Development of prognostic nomograms for individualizing 5-year and 10-year fracture risks. Osteoporos Int 19:1431–1444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, Borgstrom F, Strom O, McCloskey E (2009) FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44:734–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. National Osteoporosis Foundation (2009) Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. http://www.nof.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/NOF_ClinicianGuide2009_v7.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2011

  6. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Strom O, Borgstrom F, Oden A (2008) Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX-assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:1395–1408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Francis R, Kanis JA, Marsh D, McCloskey EV, Reid DM, Selby P, Wilkins M (2009) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK. Maturitas 62:105–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Horne R, Weinman J (1999) Patients' beliefs about prescribed medicines and their role in adherence to treatment in chronic physical illness. J Psychosom Res 47:555–567

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yood RA, Mazor KM, Andrade SE, Emani S, Chan W, Kahler KH (2008) Patient decision to initiate therapy for osteoporosis; the influence of knowledge and beliefs. J Gen Intern Med 23:1815–1821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Compston JE, Seeman E (2006) Compliance with osteoporosis therapy is the weakest link. Lancet 368:973–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schousboe JT, Dowd BE, Davison ML, Kane RL (2010) Association of medication attitudes with non-persistence and non-compliance with medication to prevent fractures. Osteoporos Int 21:1899–1909

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Satterfield T, Johnson SM, Slovic P, Neil N, Schein JR (2000) Perceived risks and reported behaviors associated with osteoporosis and its treatment. Women Health 31:21–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. FRAX (2011) WHO fracture risk assessment tool. http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX. Accessed 7 Sept 2011

  14. Steel N (2000) Thresholds for taking antihypertensive drugs in different professional and lay groups: questionnaire survey. BMJ 320:1446–1447

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 2:527–533

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bolland MJ, Grey A (2010) Disparate outcomes from applying U.K. and U.S. osteoporosis treatment guidelines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95:1856–1860

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Moynihan R (2011) Overdiagnosis and the dangers of early detection. BMJ 342:d1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jarvinen TLN, Sievanen H, Kannus P, Jokihaara J, Khan KM (2011) The true cost of pharmacological disease prevention. BMJ 342:d2175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seeman E, Compston J, Adachi J, Brandi ML, Cooper C, Dawson-Hughes B, Jonsson B, Pols H, Cramer JA (2007) Non-compliance: the Achilles' heel of anti-fracture efficacy. Osteoporos Int 18:711–719

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A (2003) Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 327:741–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Nicholas Bennett for assistance with data entry.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Grey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Douglas, F., Petrie, K.J., Cundy, T. et al. Differing perceptions of intervention thresholds for fracture risk: a survey of patients and doctors. Osteoporos Int 23, 2135–2140 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1823-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1823-7

Keywords

Navigation