Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38778716›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2025

Osteoporosis screening in Australian community pharmacies: A mixed methods study.

Jonathan Phuong, Rebekah Moles, Deborah Mason, Christopher White, Jacqueline Center, Stephen Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Osteoporosis screening in Australian community pharmacies: A mixed methods study.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Jonathan PhuongSydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0290-8229
Rebekah MolesSydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4043-6728
Deborah MasonThe Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Christopher WhiteDepartment of Endocrinology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7732-2206
Jacqueline CenterThe Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5278-4527
Stephen CarterSydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4670-0884

Funding

Department of Health and Aged Care, Australian Government G0113
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

issues addressedOsteoporosis and poor bone health impact a large proportion of the Australian population, but is drastically underdiagnosed and undertreated. Community pharmacies are a strategic location for osteoporosis screening services due to their accessibility and the demographic profile of customers. The aim of this study was to develop, implement and evaluate a community pharmacy health promotion service centred on encouraging consumers to complete an anonymous osteoporosis screening survey called Know Your Bones.

methodsThe implementation process was documented using the REAIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework. Uptake of the Know Your Bones screening tool was monitored anonymously with website traffic. Surveys and interviews were designed to capture consumer outcomes after screening. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian community pharmacy stakeholders during design and implementation phases to explore their perspectives of the barriers and facilitators.

resultsThe service was implemented in 27 community pharmacies. There were 448 visits to the screening website. Interviews were conducted with 41 stakeholders. There were a range of factors that appeared to influence implementation of the service. Perceived acceptability was critical, which depended on staff training, pharmacists' altruism, and remuneration. Staff relied heavily on their existing close relationships with consumers. No consumers completed non-anonymous surveys or agreed to participate in interviews post-screening.

conclusionUsing an implementation science approach, a community pharmacy osteoporosis screening service for the Australian context was designed and found to be acceptable to pharmacy staff and effective in reaching the target population. SO WHAT?: This low-cost and non-invasive health promotion has potential to sustainably increase national screening rates for osteoporosis.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesHealth PromotionMass ScreeningOsteoporosisPharmaciesAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairescommunity pharmacyimplementation scienceosteoporosisscreening

Identifiers

PMID38778716
PMCPMC11730514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.