Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33761007›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2021

Developing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform content of the iFraP complex consultation intervention.

Laurna Bullock, Fay Crawford-Manning, Elizabeth Cottrell, Jane Fleming, Sarah Leyland, John Edwards, Emma M Clark, Simon Thomas, Stephen Chapman, Christopher Gidlow and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

17 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Laurna BullockSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK. l.bullock@keele.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4193-1835
Fay Crawford-ManningSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.
Elizabeth CottrellSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.
Jane FlemingCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital Fracture Liaison Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah LeylandRoyal Osteoporosis Society, Bath, UK.
John EdwardsSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.
Emma M ClarkBristol Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences,, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Simon ThomasSchool of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.
Stephen ChapmanSchool of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.
Christopher GidlowCentre for Health and Development, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK.
Cynthia P IglesiasDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Joanne ProtheroeSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9608-1487
Robert HorneCentre for Behavioural Medicine, UCL School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK.
Terence W O'NeillCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester & NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Christian MallenSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.
Clare JinksSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.
Zoe PaskinsSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7783-2986
Keele University · GBMidlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal Osteoporosis Society · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Staffordshire · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation. PURPOSE: The clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the 'model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation' within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study.

methodsA Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was 'essential' and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content.

resultsSeventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps.

conclusionsThis Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.

Indexed as

OsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesCaregiversHumansReferral and ConsultationSecondary PreventionConsultationDelphi surveyFracture Liaison ServicesiFraPIntervention developmentOsteoporosis

Identifiers

PMID33761007
PMCPMC7989712
OpenAlexW3136254411

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.