IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0158365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers to Effective Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Treatment: A Qualitative Study of Patients’ and Practitioners’ Views

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Alami
  • Lucile Hervouet
  • Serge Poiraudeau
  • Karine Briot
  • Christian Roux

Abstract

Background: Only a minority of patients at high risk for osteoporotic fracture receive treatment. Objective: Study patients’ and physicians’ views regarding postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) to identify impediments to good care. Methods: A qualitative study involving 18 physicians and 37 women (age 57–87) with PMO. Results: All women interviewed considered PMO to be somewhat normal wear-and-tear associated with old age. The women identified a large number of "causes" for osteoporosis but finally viewed it as chance. They all described its progression as slow. Three representations of PMO severity were identified: some women tended to interpreted it as benign (21), others tended to dramatize it (11), and the rest were uncertain (5). These representations did not appear linked to age or fracture. Even the women who associated fracture and PMO were uncertain of the link between them. Fractures were considered to be random events, independent of osteoporosis. Women received general life-style recommendations from their physicians positively, but did not connect them specifically to osteoporosis. Indeed, these recommendations, along with the fear of side effects, the absence of tangible results of treatments, the view of PMO as a natural process, and the representations of PMO severity are factors that may deter treatments and impact compliance. As for the physicians, they identified eight risk factors, recognizing menopause as central to PMO and recognized the link between risk of fracture and PMO. However, some considered the impact of fractures to be limited in time, and viewed PMO as a "benign" disease. Seeing the progression of PMO as slow and inevitable reduced their urgency to diagnose and treat it as compared to other diseases. Some physicians acknowledged limited mastery of the existing therapeutic arsenal and unsuccessful handling of patient compliance. Conclusion: Women’s and physicians’ perspectives on PMO converged to trivialize postmenopausal osteoporosis and thus disqualify it as a legitimate disease. A better understanding of women’s and physicians’ views, practices, and concerns related to PMO can improve osteoporosis management.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Alami & Lucile Hervouet & Serge Poiraudeau & Karine Briot & Christian Roux, 2016. "Barriers to Effective Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Treatment: A Qualitative Study of Patients’ and Practitioners’ Views," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158365
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158365
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158365&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0158365?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:pone00:0158365. 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.