Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27048388›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2016

The development of a personalized patient education tool for decision making for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

M Hiligsmann, G Ronda, T van der Weijden, A Boonen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. A quasi-experimental study about shared decision-making and motivational interviewing on patients with a recent fracture attending Fracture Liaison Services.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
    Article
  5. Cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent-adherence intervention in fracture liaison services.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2024
    Article
  6. Development and usability of a decision aid to initiate anti-osteoporosis medication treatment in patients visiting the fracture liaison service with a recent fracture.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Understanding patients' preferences for osteoporosis treatment: the impact of patients' characteristics on subgroups and latent classes.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. m.hiligsmann@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
G RondaDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
T van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A BoonenDepartment of Internal Medicine, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledA personalized patient education tool for decision making (PET) for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis was developed by means of a systematic development approach. A prototype was constructed and refined by involving various professionals and patients. Professionals and patients expressed a positive attitude towards the use of the PET.

introductionThe purpose was to systematically develop a paper-based personalized PET to assist postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in selecting a treatment in line with their personal values and preferences.

methodsThe development of the PET was based on a systematic process including scope, design, development of a prototype, and alpha testing among professionals and patients by semi-structured interviews.

resultsThe design and development resulted in a four-page PET prototype together with a one-page fact sheet of the different drug options. The prototype PET provided the personal risk factors, the estimated individualized risk for a future major osteoporotic fracture and potential reduction with drugs, and a summary of advantages and disadvantages whether or not to start drugs. The drug fact sheet presents five attributes of seven drugs in a tabular format. The alpha testing with professionals resulted in some adaptations, e.g., inclusion of the possibility to calculate fracture risk based on various individual risk scoring methods. Important results from the alpha testing with patients were differences in the fracture risk percentage which was seen as worthwhile to start drugs, the importance of an overview of side effects, and of the timing of the PET into the patient pathway. All women indicated that the PET could be helpful for their decision to select a treatment.

conclusionPhysicians and patients expressed a positive attitude towards the use of the proposed PET. Further research would be needed to test the effects of the PET on feasibility in clinical workflow and on patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient Education as TopicPostmenopauseFemaleHumansOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesDecision aidOsteoporosisPatientPatient educational toolShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID27048388
PMCPMC4947108
OpenAlexW2315844510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.