SynthesisBMJ open2020
Acceptability of bisphosphonates among patients, clinicians and managers: a systematic review and framework synthesis.
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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences of osteoporosis medication treatment: a qualitative systematic review.Archives of osteoporosis · 2024Pooled it
- A Qualitative Study to Assess US Patient Preferences between new Transdermal System and Injectable Anabolic Therapies for Osteoporosis Treatment.Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Pooled it
- Improvement of medication adherence in osteoporosis through telemedicine combined with email: a patient-reported experience and outcome measure-based prospective study.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Trial
- 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
- 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 · 2023Article
- BONEcheck: A digital tool for personalized bone health assessment.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2023Article
- 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
- Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Healthcare professionals' perceptions on barriers and facilitators to DMARD use in rheumatoid arthritis.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D).BMJ open · 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
- Fragility fractures and prescriptions of medications for osteoporosis in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica: results from the PMR Cohort Study.Rheumatology advances in practice · 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
14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.