ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
An Interpretive Descriptive Approach to Understanding Osteoporosis Management from the Perspective of People at Risk of Fracturing.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aligning definitions with realities: a qualitative study on the complexities of measuring retention in HIV care in the global context.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Implementation of Small Group Physiotherapy for People at Risk of Falls with Compromised Bone Mineral Density.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- Understanding the complexity of surgical decision-making for individuals with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A qualitative study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Adherence to both non-pharmacological and pharmacological fracture prevention interventions is often low in people with osteoporosis. Understanding how patients acquire information about osteoporosis management is important for understanding both the initial decision-making and ongoing adherence. This study explored the narrative of people living with osteoporosis and their personal experience getting information about their osteoporosis management. Methods: An interpretive descriptive method was used for this qualitative study. In-depth interviews were conducted with 13 Canadian participants (age range 51-90) who knew that they had osteoporosis or osteopenia. Participants were asked to participate in one-on-one interviews to address the type of health professionals providing osteoporosis management advice focusing specifically on advice received about exercise, nutrition, and falls prevention. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded sentence-by-sentence. Results: People with osteoporosis rely on physicians for advice related to pharmacological treatment needs, and other health professionals for non-pharmacological needs such as exercise advice, nutrition advice, and falls prevention advice. People value non-professionals, such as family members and close friends, who may or may not have osteoporosis, to discuss or corroborate health professional advice, or to validate their belief system. Conclusion: Training patients to more effectively engage in conversations with their healthcare providers may be a strategy to improve the quality of communication and its translation into adherence to best practices in managing osteoporosis.
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.