ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2020
Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing Osteoporosis Screening in Hong Kong: A CFIR-Guided Qualitative Study of Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Time to reframe osteoporosis: a position statement to characterize the osteoporosis care gap.JBMR plus · 2026Review
- Osteoporosis care in primary care settings: a national UK e-survey.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023Article
- Dolichos Lablab Linné Inhibits Bone Density Loss and Promotes Bone Union in Senile Osteoporosis through Osteogenesis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- BONEcheck: A digital tool for personalized bone health assessment.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2023Article
- Article
- Incorporating FRAX into a nurse-delivered integrated care review: a multi-method qualitative study.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstance.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022Review
- Research priorities to reduce the impact of musculoskeletal disorders: a priority setting exercise with the child health and nutrition research initiative method.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2022Review
- Towards a cure for osteoporosis: the UK Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS) Osteoporosis Research Roadmap.Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Article
- Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Developing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform content of the iFraP complex consultation intervention.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Four focus groups were conducted with members of the public to identify important areas for future osteoporosis research. Participants identified priorities to increase public awareness of osteoporosis, reduce delays in diagnosis, improve communication between healthcare providers and to improve follow-up and information provision about causes of osteoporosis, medication harms and prognosis. PURPOSE: Patients and the public must be involved in setting research agendas to ensure relevant and impactful questions are prioritised. This study aimed to understand what people living with osteoporosis and fragility fractures felt was important to research, to inform the content of a national survey on research priorities in this area.
methodsFocus groups were conducted with members of the public with experience of osteoporosis or fragility fractures. The topic guide was co-developed with a patient and public involvement research user group, and explored participants' experiences of osteoporosis including diagnosis, management and effect upon their lives, what aspects of their ongoing care was most important to them and what about their care or condition could be improved. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.
resultsA total of twenty-three participants were recruited to four focus groups. Analysis identified two main themes: challenges in living with osteoporosis and healthcare services for osteoporosis. Information needs was a further cross-cutting theme. Participants called for increased public awareness of osteoporosis and wanted healthcare services to address conflicting messages about diet, exercise and medication. Participants described long delays in diagnosis, poor communication between primary and secondary care and the need for structured follow-up as important areas for future research to address.
conclusionThe findings from this study provide an understanding of research priorities from the perspective of patients and the public, have informed the content of a national survey and have implications for patient education, health services research and policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.