Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32548718›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2020

Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study.

Ashley Hawarden, Clare Jinks, Waheed Mahmood, Laurna Bullock, Steven Blackburn, Stephen Gwilym, Zoe Paskins

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley HawardenPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST5 5BG, UK. a.hawarden@keele.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5462-579X
Clare JinksPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST5 5BG, UK.
Waheed MahmoodPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST5 5BG, UK.
Laurna BullockPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST5 5BG, UK.
Steven BlackburnPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST5 5BG, UK.
Stephen GwilymOxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Zoe PaskinsPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST5 5BG, UK.
Arthritis UK · GBMidlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health CS-2018-18-ST2-010
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchFractures, BoneOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesExerciseFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleFocus groupsOsteoporosisPatient and public involvementResearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID32548718
PMCPMC7297850
OpenAlexW3035306513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.