Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33148763›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Acceptability of bisphosphonates among patients, clinicians and managers: a systematic review and framework synthesis.

Zoe Paskins, Fay Crawford-Manning, Elizabeth Cottrell, Nadia Corp, Jenny Wright, Clare Jinks, Simon Bishop, Alison Doyle, Terence Ong, Neil Gittoes and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  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. Drug utilization analysis of osteoporosis medications in seven European electronic health databases.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
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Zoe PaskinsSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK z.paskins@keele.ac.uk.
Fay Crawford-ManningSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9768-1695
Elizabeth CottrellSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5757-1854
Nadia CorpSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Jenny WrightSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Clare JinksSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Simon BishopCentre for Health Innovation, Leadership and Learning, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Alison DoyleOperations and Clinical Practice, Royal Osteoporosis Society, Bath, UK.
Terence OngFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Neil GittoesCentre for Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jo Leonardi-BeeFaculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Tessa LangleyDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Robert HorneSchool of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK.
Opinder SahotaDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBKeele University · GBHaywood Community Hospital · GBUniversity of Malaya · MYNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

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

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the acceptability of different bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of osteoporosis among patients, clinicians and managers, payers and academics.

designA systematic review of primary qualitative studies. Seven databases were searched from inception to July 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of full-articles selected for inclusion were performed independently by two authors. A framework synthesis was applied to extracted data based on the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). The TFA includes seven domains relating to sense-making, emotions, opportunity costs, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy. Confidence in synthesis findings was assessed.

settingAny developed country healthcare setting.

participantsPatients, healthcare professionals, managers, payers and academics.

interventionExperiences and views of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates.

resultsTwenty-five studies were included, mostly describing perceptions of oral bisphosphonates. We identified, with high confidence, how patients and healthcare professionals make sense (coherence) of bisphosphonates by balancing perceptions of need against concerns, how uncertainty prevails about bisphosphonate perceived effectiveness and a number of individual and service factors that have potential to increase self-efficacy in recommending and adhering to bisphosphonates. We identified, with moderate confidence, that bisphosphonate taking induces concern, but has the potential to engender reassurance, and that both side effects and special instructions for taking oral bisphosphonates can result in treatment burden. Finally, we identified with low confidence that multimorbidity plays a role in people's perception of bisphosphonate acceptability.

conclusionBy using the lens of acceptability, our findings demonstrate with high confidence that a theoretically informed, whole-system approach is necessary to both understand and improve adherence. Clinicians and patients need supporting to understand the need for bisphosphonates, and clinicians need to clarify to patients what constitutes bisphosphonate treatment success. Further research is needed to explore perspectives of male patients and those with multimorbidity receiving bisphosphonates, and patients receiving intravenous treatment. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019143526.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsOsteoporosisDiphosphonatesHealth PersonnelHumansMaleQualitative ResearchBone Density Conservation AgentsDiphosphonatesbone diseasesmusculoskeletal disordersrheumatology

Identifiers

PMID33148763
PMCPMC7640526
OpenAlexW3095258774

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.