Cargando…

Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry

OBJECTIVES: The accuracy of patients' perception of risk is important for decisions about treatment in many diseases. We framed the risk of fracture and benefits of treatment in different ways and assessed the impact on patients' perception of fracture risk and intentions to take medicatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kalluru, Rama, Petrie, Keith J, Grey, Andrew, Nisa, Zaynah, Horne, Anne M, Gamble, Greg D, Bolland, Mark J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5306512/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188155
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013703
_version_ 1782507204993089536
author Kalluru, Rama
Petrie, Keith J
Grey, Andrew
Nisa, Zaynah
Horne, Anne M
Gamble, Greg D
Bolland, Mark J
author_facet Kalluru, Rama
Petrie, Keith J
Grey, Andrew
Nisa, Zaynah
Horne, Anne M
Gamble, Greg D
Bolland, Mark J
author_sort Kalluru, Rama
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The accuracy of patients' perception of risk is important for decisions about treatment in many diseases. We framed the risk of fracture and benefits of treatment in different ways and assessed the impact on patients' perception of fracture risk and intentions to take medication. DESIGN: Randomised trial of 4 different presentations of fracture risk and likely benefits from osteoporosis treatment. SETTING: Academic centre. PARTICIPANTS: 200 patients undergoing bone densitometry. INTERVENTION: Presentation that framed the patient's absolute fracture risk either as the chance of having or not having an event, with their likely benefits from osteoporosis treatment in natural frequencies or numbers needed to treat. OUTCOMES: Participants' views about their fracture risk and the need for osteoporosis treatment. RESULTS: The median 5-year fracture risk threshold participants regarded as high enough to consider preventative medication was 50–60%, and did not change substantially after the presentation. The median (Q1, Q3) 5-year risk initially estimated by participants was 20% (10, 50) for any fracture and 19% (10, 40) for hip fracture. 61% considered their fracture risk was low or very low, and 59–67% considered their fracture risk was lower than average. These participant estimates were 2–3 times higher than Garvan calculator estimates for any fracture, and 10–20 times higher for hip fracture. Participant estimates of fracture risk halved after the presentation, but remained higher than the Garvan estimates (1.5–2 times for any fracture, 5–10 times for hip fracture). There was no difference in these outcomes between the randomised groups. Participants' intentions about taking medication to prevent fractures were not substantially affected by receiving information about fracture risk and treatment benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Altering the framing of estimated fracture risks and treatment benefits had little effect on participants' perception of the need to take treatment or their individual fracture risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613001081707; Pre-results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5306512
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53065122017-02-27 Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry Kalluru, Rama Petrie, Keith J Grey, Andrew Nisa, Zaynah Horne, Anne M Gamble, Greg D Bolland, Mark J BMJ Open Diabetes and Endocrinology OBJECTIVES: The accuracy of patients' perception of risk is important for decisions about treatment in many diseases. We framed the risk of fracture and benefits of treatment in different ways and assessed the impact on patients' perception of fracture risk and intentions to take medication. DESIGN: Randomised trial of 4 different presentations of fracture risk and likely benefits from osteoporosis treatment. SETTING: Academic centre. PARTICIPANTS: 200 patients undergoing bone densitometry. INTERVENTION: Presentation that framed the patient's absolute fracture risk either as the chance of having or not having an event, with their likely benefits from osteoporosis treatment in natural frequencies or numbers needed to treat. OUTCOMES: Participants' views about their fracture risk and the need for osteoporosis treatment. RESULTS: The median 5-year fracture risk threshold participants regarded as high enough to consider preventative medication was 50–60%, and did not change substantially after the presentation. The median (Q1, Q3) 5-year risk initially estimated by participants was 20% (10, 50) for any fracture and 19% (10, 40) for hip fracture. 61% considered their fracture risk was low or very low, and 59–67% considered their fracture risk was lower than average. These participant estimates were 2–3 times higher than Garvan calculator estimates for any fracture, and 10–20 times higher for hip fracture. Participant estimates of fracture risk halved after the presentation, but remained higher than the Garvan estimates (1.5–2 times for any fracture, 5–10 times for hip fracture). There was no difference in these outcomes between the randomised groups. Participants' intentions about taking medication to prevent fractures were not substantially affected by receiving information about fracture risk and treatment benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Altering the framing of estimated fracture risks and treatment benefits had little effect on participants' perception of the need to take treatment or their individual fracture risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613001081707; Pre-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5306512/ /pubmed/28188155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013703 Text en © 2017 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Diabetes and Endocrinology
Kalluru, Rama
Petrie, Keith J
Grey, Andrew
Nisa, Zaynah
Horne, Anne M
Gamble, Greg D
Bolland, Mark J
Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry
title Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry
title_full Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry
title_fullStr Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry
title_full_unstemmed Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry
title_short Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry
title_sort randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry
topic Diabetes and Endocrinology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5306512/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188155
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013703
work_keys_str_mv AT kallururama randomisedtrialassessingtheimpactofframingoffractureriskandosteoporosistreatmentbenefitsinpatientsundergoingbonedensitometry
AT petriekeithj randomisedtrialassessingtheimpactofframingoffractureriskandosteoporosistreatmentbenefitsinpatientsundergoingbonedensitometry
AT greyandrew randomisedtrialassessingtheimpactofframingoffractureriskandosteoporosistreatmentbenefitsinpatientsundergoingbonedensitometry
AT nisazaynah randomisedtrialassessingtheimpactofframingoffractureriskandosteoporosistreatmentbenefitsinpatientsundergoingbonedensitometry
AT horneannem randomisedtrialassessingtheimpactofframingoffractureriskandosteoporosistreatmentbenefitsinpatientsundergoingbonedensitometry
AT gamblegregd randomisedtrialassessingtheimpactofframingoffractureriskandosteoporosistreatmentbenefitsinpatientsundergoingbonedensitometry
AT bollandmarkj randomisedtrialassessingtheimpactofframingoffractureriskandosteoporosistreatmentbenefitsinpatientsundergoingbonedensitometry