ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2025
Osteoporosis care in primary care settings: a national UK e-survey.
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 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.
- Osteoporosis and post-fracture management in the primary care setting: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- Specialty-based differences in osteoporosis management in Türkiye: a national cross-sectional survey.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Time to reframe osteoporosis: a position statement to characterize the osteoporosis care gap.JBMR plus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An electronic survey of 341 UK primary care staff identified barriers to evidence-based osteoporosis care including low confidence in clinical skills, the complex nature of decision-making, insufficient incentivisation and lack of systematic case finding. Opportunities to enhance osteoporosis care may include enhanced education and wider utilisation of the extended workforce. PURPOSE: To investigate the beliefs, confidence and practices of general practice staff in the care of people with, or at increased risk of, osteoporotic fractures and the association between professional role and beliefs and confidence about osteoporosis care.
methodsAn electronic survey was designed and distributed to UK general practice staff, including healthcare professionals (HCPs) and non-healthcare professionals (non-HCPs). Content was informed by UK clinical guidelines, a scoping review and patient and clinical stakeholder input. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were utilised for analysis, with free text responses analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThree hundred forty-one responses were obtained (309 HCPs, 32 non-HCPs). Most responding HCPs (173, 62.2%) and non-HCPs (17, 70.8%) reported osteoporosis management of moderate priority. The majority of HCPs (228, 73.8%) agreed that they were worried about osteoporosis medicines causing unpleasant side effects. Most respondents (314, 98.7%) reported GPs as involved in osteoporosis care, followed by Pharmacists (241, 75.8%) and Practice Nurses (159, 50.0%). GPs and Pharmacists reported the highest level of agreement with confidence in osteoporosis medicine related skills. Fewer than a third of respondents reported systematic invitation of patients with risk factors (fracture, steroids or falls) for assessment. Free text responses indicated problems with communication between primary and secondary care, challenging decision-making, limited access to resources (e.g. DXA scan, dentistry) and insufficient incentivisation as barriers to delivery of recommended osteoporosis care.
conclusionIdentified opportunities to improve osteoporosis care include improved education, incentivisation, automated case finding and involvement of the wider primary care workforce, particularly Pharmacists.
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.