Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35688897›Full record

ReviewOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2022

Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstance.

Z Paskins, O Babatunde, A Sturrock, L S Toh, R Horne, I Maidment, Effectiveness Working Group of the Royal Osteoporosis Society Osteoporosis, Bone Research Academy

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.6field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 6 institutions in 1 country.

Z PaskinsSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK. z.paskins@keele.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7783-2986
O BabatundeSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
A SturrockDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
L S TohDivision of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
R HorneCentre for Behavioural Medicine, UCL School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK.
I MaidmentClinical Pharmacy, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Effectiveness Working Group of the Royal Osteoporosis Society Osteoporosis, Bone Research Academy
University of Staffordshire · GBAston University · GBKeele University · GBNorthumbria University · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_21003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews that examine effectiveness of interventions to improve medicines optimisation do not explain how or why they work. This realist review identified that interventions which effectively optimise medicines use in osteoporosis include opportunities to address patients' perceptions of illness and treatment and/or support primary care clinician decision making.

introductionIn people with osteoporosis, adherence to medicines is poorer than other diseases and patients report follow-up is lacking, and multiple unmet information needs. We conducted a rapid realist review to understand what contextual conditions and mechanisms enable interventions to support osteoporosis medication optimisation.

methodsA primary search identified observational or interventional studies which aimed to improve medicines adherence or optimisation; a supplementary second search identified research of any design to gain additional insights on emerging findings. Extracted data was interrogated for patterns of context-mechanism-outcome configurations, further discussed in team meetings, informed by background literature and the Practicalities and Perception Approach as an underpinning conceptual framework.

resultsWe identified 5 contextual timepoints for the person with osteoporosis (identifying a problem; starting medicine; continuing medicine) and the practitioner and healthcare system (making a diagnosis and giving a treatment recommendation; reviewing medicine). Interventions which support patient-informed decision making appear to influence long-term commitment to treatment. Supporting patients' practical ability to adhere (e.g. by lowering treatment burden and issuing reminders) only appears to be helpful, when combined with other approaches to address patient beliefs and concerns. However, few studies explicitly addressed patients' perceptions of illness and treatment. Supporting primary care clinician decision making and integration of primary and secondary care services also appears to be important, in improving rates of treatment initiation and adherence.

conclusionsWe identified a need for further research to identify a sustainable, integrated, patient-centred, and cost- and clinically effective model of long-term care for people with osteoporosis.

Indexed as

OsteoporosisHumansMedicines optimisationOsteoporosis treatmentRealist review

Identifiers

PMID35688897
PMCPMC9568441
OpenAlexW4281937236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.