IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0018468.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Do Women Reject Bisphosphonates for Osteoporosis? A Videographic Study

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth A Scoville
  • Paula Ponce de Leon Lovaton
  • Nilay D Shah
  • Laurie J Pencille
  • Victor M Montori

Abstract

Background: Despite access to effective, safe, and affordable treatment for osteoporosis, at-risk women may choose not to start bisphosphonate therapy. Understanding the reasons women give for rejecting a clinician's offer of treatment during consultations and how clinician's react to these reasons may help clinicians develop more effective strategies for fracture prevention and medication adherence. Methods: We conducted a videographic evaluation of encounters in the Osteoporosis Choice randomized trial of a decision aid about bisphosphonates vs. usual primary care. Eligible videos involved consultations with women with an estimated 10-year fragility fracture risk >20% who verbalized at least one reason to not take bisphosphonates. Two reviewers independently reviewed eligible videos and verbatim transcripts, classifying patient views about bisphosphonate use, clinicians reponse to those views, and patient adherence at 6 months post visit. Results: Eighteen video recordings (12 with decision aid) were eligible for analyses. We identified 37 reasons for and against bisphosphonate therapy. Eleven patients rejected treatment, offering 9 (average of 2 per patient) unique reasons against initiating bisphosphonates (most common: side effects 39% and distrust of medications in general 33%). When physicians conceded to patient views the outcome was no bisphosphonate use. Adherence to choices at 6 months was 100%. Conclusions: The expression of patient preferences is sometimes unfavorable to bisphosphonates treatment even among well-informed patients at high risk for osteoporotic fractures. At 6 months, patients who expressed concerns about these medicines behaved consistently with the decision made during the visit.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth A Scoville & Paula Ponce de Leon Lovaton & Nilay D Shah & Laurie J Pencille & Victor M Montori, 2011. "Why Do Women Reject Bisphosphonates for Osteoporosis? A Videographic Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0018468
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018468
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018468&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0018468?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0018468. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.