ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2025
Patient perceptions of osteoporosis management: a qualitative pilot study by a patient advisory group.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and Facilitators to Self-Care Behaviors in People Living with Osteoporosis: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Differences in contributing factors to diagnostic errors between physicians and allied health professionals: a nationwide analysis in Japan.BMJ open quality · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of osteoporosis even after a fracture is declining. Our pilot study in patients with osteoporosis confirms a large ignorance of the disease and major fears and uncertainties about the treatments. Complete and sustained medical information seems essential to counteract the contradictory information, which are exclusively negative. PURPOSE: The management of osteoporosis (OP) even after a fracture has declined over recent years despite the actions of the medical societies concerned with this disease. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate patients' perceptions of OP, their treatment pathways, and how information is obtained.
methodsThe Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale (AFLAR) constituted an advisory group of 7 French patients (mean age 63.7 years [54-74 years]), with various stages of OP and duration of disease. A qualitative, anonymized study was conducted with an open-ended semi-structured questionnaire, with a contribution of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the "Groupe de Recherche et Informations sur les Ostéoporoses" (GRIO).
resultsThe onset of OP was often sudden, with the fracture occurring in a context of deep misunderstanding of OP by both the public and physicians. The patients have confidence in the physician, mostly a rheumatologist, who informs about OP and initiates the treatment. The main cause of non-adherence being major fears and uncertainties about efficacy and safety of treatments. Medical information is considered as insufficient, or poorly understood. Negative information has the highest impact, even if the sources seem unreliable, such as media. There is no trust in pharmaceutical companies and the ethics of physicians are in question.
conclusionThis IOF/GRIO/AFLAR Patient Advisory Group pilot study illustrates the numerous barriers to effective OP management. Complete and sustained medical information, especially at the time of diagnosis and initiation of treatment, seems essential to counteract the contradictory information, which are exclusively negative.
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.