Addition of a fracture risk assessment to a coordinator's role improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening in a fragility fracture screening program.

We evaluated the impact of a more intensive version of an existing post-fracture coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found that the addition of a full-risk assessment improved treatment rates. These findings provide additional support for more intensive programs aimed at reducing the risk of re-fractures. INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based guidelines support coordinator-based programs to improve post-fracture osteoporosis guideline uptake, with more intensive programs including bone mineral density (BMD) testing and/or treatment being associated with better patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a more intensive version (BMD "fast track") of an existing provincial coordinator-based program. METHODS: We compared two versions of the program that screened treatment naïve fragility fracture patients (>50 years). Cases came from the BMD fast track program that included full fracture risk assessment and communication of relevant guidelines to the primary care provider (PCP). Matched controls were selected from the usual care program matching according to age, sex, fracture type, and date. Two matching techniques were used: traditional (hard) matching (TM) and propensity score matching (PS). The outcomes were treatment initiation with bone sparing medication, BMD testing rate, and the rate of returning to discuss the test results with a PCP. RESULTS: The program improvements led to a significant improvement in treatment initiation within 6 months from 16 % (controls based on PS) or 21 % (controls based on TM) to 32 % (cases). Ninety percent of patients in the BMD fast track program returned to their PCP to discuss bone health in the cases versus 60 % of the controls (for TM and PS). BMD testing occurred in 96 % of cases compared to the 66 (TM) or 65 % (PS) of the matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of a full-risk assessment to a coordinator-based program significantly improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening.

Factors predictive of the perceived osteoporosis-fracture link in fragility fracture patients.

OBJECTIVE: Given the asymptomatic nature of osteoporosis, a fragility fracture provides an opportunity to make the issue of osteoporosis relevant to patients. Patients who link their fragility fracture with osteoporosis are more likely to initiate osteoporosis treatment, yet to date, we know little about who is likely to make this link. This study examined whether demographic, health, and osteoporosis belief factors predicted a perceived link between a fragility fracture and osteoporosis. STUDY DESIGN: This longitudinal cohort study analyzed baseline and follow up data collected as part of a provincial osteoporosis screening initiative targeting fragility fracture patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between hypothesized predictors and the outcome. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient perception of the osteoporosis-fracture link at follow up. RESULTS: At baseline, 93% (1615/1735) of patients did not believe their fracture could have been caused by osteoporosis. Of these, only 8.2% changed this perception at follow up. Adjusted analyses showed that baseline characteristics associated with making the osteoporosis-fracture link at follow up were: a previous fracture (odds ratio (OR) 1.7, confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.6), perception of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy benefits OR 1.2 (CI 1.0-1.5), diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis OR 2.6 (CI 1.4-4.9) and the perception of bones as "thin" OR 8.2 (CI 5.1-13.1). CONCLUSION: These results shed more light on patient-level barriers to osteoporosis management following an osteoporosis educational programme. They may be used to identify patients less likely to make the link between their fracture and osteoporosis and to inform interventions for this patient group.