ArticleBMJ public health2026
Perceptions of osteoporosis risk assessment during menopause: a qualitative focus group study of patients and healthcare professionals in the UK.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We conducted an exploratory, interpretive qualitative study to understand how UK patients and healthcare professionals perceive osteoporosis risk assessment around the menopausal transition and how they experience current care pathways. Methods: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study using focus groups to understand patient and clinician perceptions of osteoporosis risk assessment, associated needs and experiences and perceived barriers and opportunities within current care pathways. We interviewed 9 healthcare professionals (including general practitioners, pharmacists and other allied healthcare professionals) in focus groups of 2-3 and 10 patients in focus groups of 3-6. Each participant was involved in two focus group discussions about topics including the perceived need for osteoporosis risk assessment, diagnosis and prevention, exploring potential risk assessment pathways and considering the barriers and opportunities to developing risk assessment and diagnosis innovations for osteoporosis within the UK. Data reported in this paper were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three key themes emerged from this data: (1) public health literacy, (2) risk assessment and prevention and (3) opportunities for positive outcomes. The data demonstrate that low public health literacy, combined with high risk factors, presents significant opportunities for targeted interventions and improved outcomes in osteoporosis care, particularly around menopause. Future research should explore scalable models for delivering osteoporosis risk assessment in primary care settings, ensuring equitable access and sustainability within an overstretched system. Conclusions: This study reinforces longstanding evidence that osteoporosis remains under-recognised among perimenopausal women, despite elevated risk and decades of research. By contrast, the recent surge in menopause awareness presents a timely and strategic opportunity to embed osteoporosis messaging into existing public health discourse.
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.