Patient Perception on Osteoporosis in Korean Female Patients with Osteoporosis

Article information

J Bone Metab. 2024;31(1):63-74
Publication date (electronic) : 2024 February 29
doi : https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2024.31.1.63
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, National Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
2Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
3Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Bumin Hospital, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding author: Yong-Chan Ha, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Bumin Hospital, 389 Gonghang-daero, Gangseo-gu, Seoul 07590, Korea, Tel: +82-2-2620-5101, Fax: +82-2-2620-0100, E-mail: hayongch@naver.com
*Kyung-Hag Lee and Guhyun Lee contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.
Received 2024 January 5; Revised 2024 February 3; Accepted 2024 February 8.

Abstract

Background

Patient perception is a key element in improving compliance with medications for osteoporosis. This study evaluated the awareness, perception, sources of information, and knowledge of osteoporosis among Korean women with osteoporosis.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was conducted from July 22, 2021 to 13 August 2021. Patients who were followed up in endocrinology (Endo), orthopedic surgery (OS), and gynecology (GY) were recruited (N=40, 40, and 20 in each group). Patients were allocated according to their age, as follows: 15, 15, and 10 patients in their 60s, 70s, and 80s for Endo and OS, and 10 and 10 patients in their 60s and 70s for GY. The questionnaire was composed of the following topics: patient journey to the hospital, drug-related issues, communication with medical doctors, patient knowledge, and sources of information about osteoporosis.

Results

The results of medical check-ups were the most common reason for patient visits to the hospital for an initial diagnosis of osteoporosis (61%). A knowledge gap regarding mortality, refracture, and drug-induced osteoporosis was observed. Doctors were the most preferred and trustful source of information, while health-related TV shows were the second most common source of information. Patients with OS reported lower perceived severity and higher drug discontinuation, along with a higher proportion of fractures, as the initial reasons for hospital visits for osteoporosis.

Conclusions

Variations in perceptions according to the issue and group were identified. These should be considered during patient consultations to improve compliance with osteoporosis treatment.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is the most common skeletal disease in humans [1] causing fragility fractures, that result in decreased functional recovery and increased mortality. The disability associated with fragility fractures in the population is comparable to that of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic stroke.[2] Therefore, treatment of osteoporosis for the prevention of fragility fracture is one of the most important public health issues worldwide.

Osteoporosis treatment has proven its effectiveness in preventing fragility fractures reducing vertebral fractures by up to 70% and hip fractures by up to 53%.[3,4] Given the chronic nature and prolonged treatment required for this disease, drug compliance is essential for successful treatment.[5] However, adherence to osteoporosis medications is known to be suboptimal, varying from 34% to 75% in the first year of treatment [6,7] and persistence levels at 1 year were reported to be between 18% and 75%.[8] This suboptimal adherence and persistence not only lead to increased fracture rate but also result in worse health outcomes.[9,10]

Therefore, research aimed at improving compliance must be prioritized.[5] Various factors including dosing requirements, medical insurance impediments, medication, costs, side-effects of medications, and patient-physician rapport are mentioned,[11,12] but their effect on compliance is not fully understood. Recently, patient perception has been found to predict adherence to medication in a variety of chronic conditions [13] including osteoporosis. Lowered perceptions of the risks of osteoporosis could contribute to medication nonadherence.[14,15] Patients’ beliefs about their perceived need for medication, concerns about medication, experience of side effects, and the inconvenience of dosing regimens are all associated with nonadherence.[16,17]

Therefore, healthcare providers need to determine the population’s perception and preference towards osteoporosis to plan effective education programs [18] and to improve adherence.[19] However, patient perception of osteoporosis and its treatment has not been extensively studied in the Korean population. This study aims to evaluate the awareness, satisfaction with communication, sources of information, and knowledge of osteoporosis in Korean women with osteoporosis to identify unmet needs and expectations to improve optimal communication for better treatment.

METHODS

1. Study population

This study was conducted from 22 July 2021 to 13 August 2021. Female patients followed up by endocrinology (Endo), orthopedics (OS), and gynecology (GY) departments for osteoporosis in general hospitals in Seoul, Gyeonggi-do, Incheon, and other 4 major cities were enrolled. Eligible patients were interviewed during their regular visits. A total of 100 women were enrolled, and for Endo and OS, 40 patients were enrolled respectively comprising 15 patients in their 60s, 15 patients in their 70s, and 10 patients in their 80s. For the GY clinic, 20 patients were enrolled comprising 10 patients in their 60s and 10 patients in their 70s old resulting in a total of 40 patients in their 60s, 40 patients in their 70s, and 20 patients in their 80s. Patients with a history of dementia were excluded.

2. Patient screening and interview

We conducted quantitative and computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI) with participants. Before the survey, patients were asked to complete a screening to confirm eligibility for this study including demographics and the presence of diseases, other than osteoporosis, that have been treated for more than 6 months. Once the target number of respondents was reached, further interview was not carried out with the patient. For the enrolled patients, a survey was conducted through one-on-one interviews, each lasting approximately 30 min.

CAPI was composed of the following topics including: Patient Journey to hospital, drug-related issues, communication with medical doctors, patient knowledge, and source of information about osteoporosis. Each topic is composed of the following details.

Patient journey: Trigger of initial hospital visit, age of initial diagnosis of osteoporosis, history of hospital change, and reason for hospital change (multiple choice)

Drug-related: Currently prescribed medication, history of drug change, situation of drug change, history of drug discontinuation, reason for drug discontinuation, perceived difficulty during treatment

Communication: Information by doctor when diagnosed, methods of information delivery, satisfaction level on explanation, reason of dissatisfaction, response to the doctor after feeling dissatisfaction

Patient Knowledge: Self-perceived level of awareness, awareness of osteoporosis symptoms, causes, risk-related and treatment-related, and perceived severity

Source of information: Information channel when diagnosed, preferred information channel, most truthful information channel, additional information required.

3. Statistical analysis

A χ2 test was done to compare the difference between groups (According to department and according to age group) SPSS statistics (version 27; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the analysis. For comparison, a 5-point Likert scale was divided into no (1, 2, and 3) and yes (4 and 5).

RESULTS

1. Demographics of the respondents

Depending on the region, there were 60 patients in Seoul/Gyeonggi/Incheon, 12 in Daejeon/Chungnam, 11 in Busan/Gyeongnam, 9 in Gwangju/Jeolla, and 8 in Daegu/Gyeongbuk. Regarding the highest level of education, 85 patients graduated from high school or less, 3 dropped out of college, 9 graduated from college, and 3 did not respond. Eighty-eight percent of osteoporosis patients had comorbidities with the following prevalence orders: Hypertension>Diabetes>Dyslipidemia. The proportion of patients with comorbidities was highest in Endo (98%) and lowest in GY (75%). Almost all patients with comorbidities were prescribed medication for treatment.

2. Diagnosis and medications for osteoporosis

More than half of the patients (61%) were diagnosed with osteoporosis through regular medical check-ups. By specialty, OS patients showed a higher proportion of joint problems (45%) and/or fractures (35%) which is 2 to 3 times higher than Endo/GY (P<0.05). The 37% of patients changed their hospital for osteoporosis treatment at least one time after osteoporosis diagnosis, and the proportion was notably higher in the age group of 70s (65%) compared to those in their 60s (18%) and 80s (20%) (P<0.01) (Table 1).

Patient journey to hospital

Thirty-seven percent of patients had a history of drug change. Patients in OS tended to have more experience of drug change(s) than other specialties (45% vs. 33 and 30%) Most common situation for drug change was their doctor’s recommendation (62%) but in the GY group, patient suggestions for change were 83%. The 14% of patients had experience of stopping medication in the past, and OS patients showed a higher rate of treatment discontinuation than other specialties (23% vs. 8 and 10%) The primary reason for drug discontinuation was ‘insufficient efficacy’ (36%) followed by ‘not enough pain/inconvenience’ (29%) and ‘bothersome’ (29%). The most significant difficulty that patients experienced during treatment overall was the ‘lack of effect’ (23%) (Table 2).

Drug related issues related to osteoporosis

When diagnosed with osteoporosis, the largest number of patients were informed about ‘what osteoporosis is’ (65%), followed by ‘(future) treatment plan and process’ (54%) and ‘current condition and prognosis’ (52%). The majority of patients (77%) were satisfied with their doctor’s explanations but 23% were not satisfied. Among subgroups, patients in OS and those in their 70s showed the lowest satisfaction level compared to other subgroups. The most common reason of dissatisfaction with the doctor’s consultation was ‘too short consultation time (61%)’ followed by ‘too difficult explanation (28%)’ and ‘insufficient explanation (22%)’ When the doctor’s explanation was too difficult or insufficient, only 56% of patients actively responded by asking questions immediately (Table 3).

Communication with medical staffs related to osteoporosis

3. Level of Knowledge of the patients

About half of the patients (55%) perceived that they were well aware of osteoporosis. More than two-thirds of patients mentioned that they are well aware of osteoporosis-related symptoms mentioned in the list. However, 55% of patients did not know that osteoporosis can be developed without any special signs/symptoms. Regarding osteoporosis causes, ‘Aging’ (95%) was perceived as the most common cause of osteoporosis, followed by ‘lack of nutrition’ (91%), ‘family history’ (60%), and ‘drugs’ (51%) were less recognized as causes of osteoporosis. Awareness of osteoporosis treatment was higher than awareness of osteoporosis risk, and issues related to re-fracture and mortality were low. Most groups perceived osteoporosis as a severe disease, but OS patients tended to show lower perceived severity (78% vs. 93 and 95%) (P=0.07) (Table 4).

Patient knowledge on osteoporosis

Most patients gained information through ‘doctor’ (95%) and ‘family/acquaintances’ (53%) when diagnosed with osteoporosis followed by TV health-related shows (27%). The most preferred information channel for new information was ‘doctor’ (68%) followed by TV health-related shows (10%). The most truthful information channel was ‘doctor’ (94%) while TV health-related shows were considered truthful by only 2% of patients. Concerning additional information required by patients, drug-related issues still ranked high, along with information on good exercise (36%) and diet (32%) (Table 5).

Source of information related to osteoporosis

DISCUSSION

Although treatment of osteoporosis is known to prevent various fragility fractures by about 50%,[20] compliance to osteoporosis treatment is reported to be low.[8] This study aimed to investigate patient understanding on osteoporosis using a questionnaire. The principal findings of this study are that 61% of patients are diagnosed with osteoporosis through regular medical check-ups and 37% of patients have a history of drug change. In addition, 55% of patients perceived that they were well aware of osteoporosis. Most patients gained information through ‘doctor’ (95%) and ‘family/acquaintances’ (53%) when diagnosed with osteoporosis followed by TV health-related shows (27%).

The most common reason for patients to visit the hospital for the initial diagnosis of osteoporosis was the result of a medical check-up. This finding may be attributed to the increased diagnosis rate of osteoporosis in Korean patients after the inclusion of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in annual medical check-ups for women aged 54 years old since 2007, which is reported to have risen from 29.9% in 2008–2009 to 62.87% in 2016–2017.[21] The significance of this heightened screening test becomes more apparent, given that almost half of our patients (45%) are unaware that osteoporosis has no particular symptoms. Concurrently, efforts should be directed towards improving the quality control of DXA, particularly in medical check-up settings, as even in Metropolitan areas, the quality control of DXA is suboptimal with over 90% of technicians failing to perform monthly quality control.[22]

We identified knowledge gaps in our results. Among risk-related knowledge, items related to mortality were found to be lower than other aspects. The statement “If osteoporosis causes hip bone fractures, 1.5 out of 10 people die within a year” had a 63% response rate, while “The risk of death from a femur fracture equals that of breast cancer, four times higher than that of endometrial cancer” had a 53% response rate. Regarding the shortage of mortality information provided to patients, there are abundant reports on epilepsy patients, and the shortage is considered to stem from the belief that discussing unpleasant subjects with patients induces stress and anxiety or reduces their quality of life.[2325] However, as most guidelines on epilepsy recommend providing information on mortality to improve patient outcomes,[26] education on mortality should be considered to enhance outcomes in osteoporosis patients. However, as shown in the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis study by Beaudart et al. [27], the importance of perception regarding mortality in osteoporosis patients exhibited high variation across nations, this issue should be explained cautiously taking account of local preferences.

To address these knowledge gaps, the role of physician is the paramount, given that our study identified doctors as the most preferred (68%) and truthful (94%) source of information which is consistent with previous studies.[2830] However, along with previous study,[31] current satisfaction level with doctor’s explanation was not notably high (77%) and the most common reason for dissatisfaction was “too short consultation time” (61%). This corresponds with findings in earlier research,[32] highlighting the importance of doctors allocating sufficient time to enhance patient compliance. To enhance long-term knowledge, communication should be tailored to the patient’s language taking account of their history, needs and health literacy.[33] Additionally, doctors should recognize that attentive listening is a crucial aspect of ensuring patient satisfaction.[34]

One interesting result worth noting is that TV health-related shows were the second most common information channel when diagnosed and the most preferred information channel after doctors, despite that channel’s low reliability. The delivery of health information through mass media offers the advantage of being relatively easy to understand and provides improved accessibility for individuals with limited access to health information.[35] A study by Kim et al. [36] found that senior citizens in the community primarily obtain health information through mass media, and TV in particular, was identified as the ‘place where the health information content was the most informative and helpful’ and ‘the place where the content was easiest to understand’. Given these insights, it is crucial to improve the reliability of TV show content should be improved, and in this regard, the role of osteoporosis society becomes pivotal.

Between groups, respondents in the OS exhibited a lower perceived severity (not severe 23% vs. 8 and 5%; P=0.07) and a higher drug discontinuation rate (23% vs. 8 and 10%; P=0.131) even with a higher rate of fractures as a reason for the initial visit (35% vs. 15 and 15%; P=0.035). Furthermore, the risk-related knowledge including the risks of morbidity and re-fracture after fracture, was also low in OS group. This observation can be explained by the phenomenon where patients who have sustained previous fractures may not perceive themselves at a higher risk of fracture and attribute the fracture to osteoporosis.[15,37,38] This may be in contrast with the physician’s belief. Therefore, it is important to provide education on the importance of understanding osteoporosis and the increased risk of fracture to patients who have already experienced a fracture. Additionally, since this misperception is known to persist over time,[39] continuous education and close monitoring should be provided to this patient group.

There are some limitations to this study. First, this data is exclusively from Korean patients. However, it is reported that there is substantial variation in patient perception between nations [27] which implies the importance of understanding local preferences as this study aimed to investigate. Second, demographic factors and perception issues were not analyzed in this study. However, it is known that demographic factors have not consistently predicted patient perceptions,[39,40] so the actual incidence or tendency may be a more crucial factor when providing care. Third, due to the small sample size, we could not conclude some important points in this study including patient engagement, i.e., which showed higher engagement in the GY group and lower engagement in age over 80. Based on this finding, additional large-volume studies should be considered in the future.

Variations in perception according to issues and groups were identified in this study. These should be taken into consideration in patient consultation to improve compliance with osteoporosis treatment.

Notes

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted exclusively with secondary data without identification of subjects, and its procedures are in accordance with the principles of ethics in research involving human beings. Thus, the study was waived from formal review and informed consent by the institutional Research Ethics Committee. However, the study was conducted according to the Helsinki declaration and good clinical practice.

Conflict of interest

Interview and data collection were supported by AMGEN®. No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 2001;285:785–95. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.6.785.
2. Borgström F, Karlsson L, Ortsäter G, et al. Fragility fractures in Europe: burden, management and opportunities. Arch Osteoporos 2020;15:59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-0706-y.
3. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, et al. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:23–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2074-y.
4. Lorentzon M. Treating osteoporosis to prevent fractures: current concepts and future developments. J Intern Med 2019;285:381–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12873.
5. Ko KR, Lee S, Oh SY, et al. Long-term oral bisphosphonate compliance focusing on switching of prescription pattern. Patient Prefer Adherence 2020;14:2009–16. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.S266697.
6. Netelenbos JC, Geusens PP, Ypma G, et al. Adherence and profile of non-persistence in patients treated for osteoporosis-a large-scale, long-term retrospective study in The Netherlands. Osteoporos Int 2011;22:1537–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1372-5.
7. Klop C, Welsing PM, Elders PJ, et al. Long-term persistence with anti-osteoporosis drugs after fracture. Osteoporos Int 2015;26:1831–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3084-3.
8. Fatoye F, Smith P, Gebrye T, et al. Real-world persistence and adherence with oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027049. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027049.
9. Ross S, Samuels E, Gairy K, et al. A meta-analysis of osteoporotic fracture risk with medication nonadherence. Value Health 2011;14:571–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.010.
10. Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Gathon HJ, et al. Potential clinical and economic impact of nonadherence with osteoporosis medications. Calcif Tissue Int 2010;86:202–10.
11. Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ. Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed care population. Bone 2006;38:922–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2005.10.022.
12. Cramer JA, Amonkar MM, Hebborn A, et al. Compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate dosing regimens among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1453–60. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079905x61875.
13. Castle D. Perceptions of health and illness: current research and applications. In : Petrie KJ, Weinman JA, eds. Harwood Academic Publishers. New York: 1998. Psychol Med 1999. 29p. 1467–80.
14. Giangregorio L, Dolovich L, Cranney A, et al. Osteoporosis risk perceptions among patients who have sustained a fragility fracture. Patient Educ Couns 2009;74:213–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.001.
15. Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Thabane L, et al. Do patients perceive a link between a fragility fracture and osteoporosis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008;9:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-38.
16. Carr AJ, Thompson PW, Cooper C. Factors associated with adherence and persistence to bisphosphonate therapy in osteoporosis: a cross-sectional survey. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:1638–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0166-2.
17. McHorney CA, Schousboe JT, Cline RR, et al. The impact of osteoporosis medication beliefs and side-effect experiences on non-adherence to oral bisphosphonates. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:3137–52. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079907x242890.
18. Gemalmaz A, Oge A. Knowledge and awareness about osteoporosis and its related factors among rural Turkish women. Clin Rheumatol 2008;27:723–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-007-0777-9.
19. Kendler DL, Macarios D, Lillestol MJ, et al. Influence of patient perceptions and preferences for osteoporosis medication on adherence behavior in the Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction study. Menopause 2014;21:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/GME.0b013e31828f5e5d.
20. Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, et al. 2010 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 2010;182:1864–73. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.100771.
21. Choi YJ, Shin HB, Park B, et al. Temporal change in the diagnosis and treatment rates of osteoporosis: results from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Osteoporos Int 2021;32:1777–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-021-05864-z.
22. Kim HS. Research on the bone mineral densitometer quality control and the precision test of radio-technologists by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at metropolitan area hospital. J Radiat Ind 2018;11:283–9.
23. Brodie MJ, Holmes GL. Should all patients be told about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP)? Pros and Cons. Epilepsia 2008;49Suppl 9. :99–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01933.x.
24. Morton B, Richardson A, Duncan S. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP): don’t ask, don’t tell? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;77:199–202. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.066852.
25. Friedman D, Donner EJ, Stephens D, et al. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: knowledge and experience among U.S. and Canadian neurologists. Epilepsy Behav 2014;35:13–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.03.022.
26. Schwab C, Wadle NE, Knake S, et al. Patients’ knowledge about epilepsy-related risks, morbidity, and mortality: a multicenter cohort study from Germany. Epilepsy Behav 2021;124:108343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.108343.
27. Beaudart C, Sharma M, Clark P, et al. Patients’ preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study. Osteoporos Int 2024;35:451–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-023-06955-9.
28. Ribeiro V, Blakeley J, Laryea M. Women’s knowledge and practices regarding the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Health Care Women Int 2000;21:347–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/073993300245195.
29. Ahmadieh H, Basho A, Chehade A, et al. Perception of peri-menopausal and postmenopausal Lebanese women on osteoporosis: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Transl Endocrinol 2018;14:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcte.2018.10.001.
30. Morin SN, Djekic-Ivankovic M, Funnell L, et al. Patient engagement in clinical guidelines development: input from >1000 members of the Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network. Osteoporos Int 2020;31:867–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05248-4.
31. Lewiecki EM. The role of risk communication in the care of osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2011;9:141–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-011-0056-1.
32. Barańska A, Religioni U, Drop B, et al. Assessment of the level of satisfaction with medical care of patients treated in osteoporosis clinics as an indicator of the quality of medical care. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:7343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127343.
33. Jakobsen PR, Hermann AP, Søndergaard J, et al. Left in limbo - Experiences and needs among postmenopausal women newly diagnosed with osteoporosis without preceding osteoporotic fractures: a qualitative study. Post Reprod Health 2018;24:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053369118755189.
34. Saravanakumari AD, Selvi DT, Kumar RR, et al. Assessment of patient satisfaction with inpatient services at secondary level setting. Public Health Rev Int J Public Health Res 2020;7:58–65. https://doi.org/10.17511/ijphr.2020.i06.03.
35. Grilli R, Ramsay C, Minozzi S. Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;1:CD000389. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd000389.
36. Kim HJ, Joh HK, Kwon HK, et al. Concern in and utilization of the mass media health information in community-dwelling elderly. Korean J Fam Med 2009;30:426–39. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2009.30.6.426.
37. Litwic AE, Westbury LD, Carter S, et al. Self-perceived fracture risk in the global longitudinal study of osteoporosis in women: its correlates and relationship with bone microarchitecture. Calcif Tissue Int 2020;106:625–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-020-00680-9.
38. Siris ES, Gehlbach S, Adachi JD, et al. Failure to perceive increased risk of fracture in women 55 years and older: the global longitudinal study of osteoporosis in women (GLOW). Osteoporos Int 2011;22:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1211-8.
39. Sujic R, Gignac MA, Cockerill R, et al. Factors predictive of the perceived osteoporosis-fracture link in fragility fracture patients. Maturitas 2013;76:179–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.07.014.
40. Cornelissen D, Boonen A, Bours S, et al. Understanding patients’ preferences for osteoporosis treatment: the impact of patients’ characteristics on subgroups and latent classes. Osteoporos Int 2020;31:85–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05154-9.

Article information Continued

Table 1

Patient journey to hospital

Total (N=100) Specialty Age (yr)


Endo (N=40) OS (N=40) GY (N=20) P-value 60–69 (N=40) 70–79 (N=40) ≥80 (N=20) P-value
Trigger of initial hospital visit 0.035 0.089
 Medical checkup showing OP 61 27 (68) 16 (40) 18 (90) 28 (70) 26 (65) 7 (35)
 Feeling something wrong with joints 33 12 (30) 18 (45) 3 (15) 14 (35) 8 (20) 11 (55)
 Occurred fracture 23 6 (15) 14 (35) 3 (15) 7 (18) 11 (28) 5 (25)
 Getting shorter 13 6 (15) 4 (10) 3 (15) 4 (10) 6 (15) 3 (15)
 Stooped posture 8 5 (13) 1 (3) 2 (10) 1 (3) 5 (13) 2 (10)
 Others 8 5 (13) 1 (3) 2 (10) 4 (10) 2 (5) 2 (10)

History of hospital change after initial Dx of OP 0.415 <0.001
 0 63 25 (63) 23 (58) 15 (75) 33 (83) 14 (35) 16 (80)
 ≥1 time 37 15 (38) 17 (43) 5 (25) 7 (18) 26 (65) 4 (20)

The data is presented as N (%).

Endo, endocrinology; OS, orthopedic surgery; GY, gynecology; OP, osteoporosis; Dx, diagnosis.

Table 2

Drug related issues related to osteoporosis

Total (N=100) Specialty Age (yr)


Endo (N=40) OS (N=40) GY (N=20) P-value 60–69 (N=40) 70–79 (N=40) ≥80 (N=20) P-value
History of drug change 0.393 0.109
 0 63 27 (68) 22 (55) 14 (70) 30 (75) 21 (53) 12 (60)
 ≥1 37 13 (33) 18 (45) 6 (30) 10 (25) 19 (48) 8 (40)

Situation of drug change (N=37) 0.119 0.369
 N 37 13 18 6 10 19 8
 I requested drug changing to HCPs 1 (3) 1 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (5) 0 (0)
 After my consultation HCPs decided to change drug 13 (35) 4 (31) 4 (22) 5 (83) 4 (40) 8 (42) 1 (13)
 HCPs recommended changing drug and I agreed 22 (60) 8 (62) 13 (72) 1 (17) 5 (50) 10 (53) 7 (88)
 HCPs decided to change drug 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (6) 0 (0) 1 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0)

History of drug discontinuation 0.131 0.940
 No 86 37 (93) 31 (78) 18 (90) 35 (88) 34 (85) 17 (85)
 Yes 14 3 (8) 9 (23) 2 (10) 5 (13) 6 (15) 3 (15)

Reason of drug discontinuation (N=14) 0.119 0.369
 N 14 3 9 2 5 6 3
 Feeling not cured even with treatment 5 (36) 1 (33) 4 (44) 0 (0) 2 (40) 2 (33) 1 (33)
 Not enough pain/inconvenience to need treatment 4 (29) 3 (100) 1 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (50) 1 (33)
 Bothersome to get treatment 4 (29) 1 (33) 3 (33) 0 (0) 1 (20) 2 (33) 1 (33)
 Reluctant/concerned about treatment method 3 (21) 0 (0) 3 (33) 0 (0) 2 (40) 1 (17) 0 (0)
 Troublesome/didn’t have time to visit hospital 2 (14) 0 (0) 2 (22) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (67)
 Others 3 (21) 0 (0) 1 (11) 2 (100) 2 (40) 1 (17) 0 (0)

Difficulty during treatment 0.449 0.693
 Lack of effect 23 12 (30) 4 (10) 7 (35) 8 (20) 10 (25) 5 (25)
 Economic burden 15 6 (15) 7 (18) 2 (10) 9 (23) 3 (8) 3 (15)
 Inconvenience of frequent hospital visit/drug 14 5 (13) 6 (15) 3 (15) 4 (10) 6 (15) 4 (20)
 Frequently forgetting when taking medication 14 3 (8) 9 (23) 2 (10) 8 (20) 6 (15) 0 (0)
 Lack of information about disease 13 7 (18) 3 (8) 3 (15) 3 (8) 6 (15) 4 (20)
 Lack of understanding by family/acquaintances due to no special symptoms 6 2 (5) 4 (10) 0 (0) 2 (5) 3 (8) 1 (5)
 Feeling uncomfortable after taking drugs 5 2 (5) 2 (5) 1 (5) 2 (5) 2 (5) 1 (5)
 Changing dietary habits and lifestyle after diagnosis of osteoporosis 4 1 (3) 8 (10) 0 (0) 3 (8) 1 (3) 0 (0)
 Severe side effect(s) 2 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (5)
 Others 4 1 (3) 1 (3) 2 (10) 1 (3) 2(5) 1 (5)

The data is presented as N (%).

Endo, endocrinology; OS, orthopedic surgery; GY, gynecology; HCP, healthcare personnel.

Table 3

Communication with medical staffs related to osteoporosis

Total (N=100) Specialty Age (yr)


Endo (N=40) OS (N=40) GY (N=20) P-value 60–69 (N=40) 70–79 (N=40) ≥80 (N=20) P-value
Information by doctor when diagnosed 0.993 0.934
 Disease (osteoporosis) 65 25 (63) 27 (68) 13 (65) 25 (63) 25 (63) 15 (75)
 Future treatment plan/process 54 23 (58) 20 (50) 11 (55) 27 (68) 16 (40) 11 (55)
 Current condition and prognosis 52 20 (50) 20 (50) 12 (60) 23 (58) 20 (50) 9 (45)
 Precautions for daily life 44 15 (38) 18 (45) 11 (55) 19 (48) 18 (45) 7 (35)
 A possible impact on life 43 19 (48) 15 (38) 9 (45) 17 (43) 17 (43) 9 (45)
 Advice to diet therapy 34 16 (40) 11 (28) 7 (35) 14 (35) 10 (25) 10 (50)
 Possible treatment option 31 12 (30) 15 (38) 4 (20) 13 (33) 11 (28) 7 (35)
 Frequency of hospital visit 30 10 (25) 13 (33) 7 (35) 15 (38) 11 (28) 4 (20
 Total treatment cost 6 3 (8) 2 (5) 1 (5) 1 (3) 2 (5) 3 (15)
 Expected duration of treatment 6 2 (5) 3 (8) 1 (5) 2 (5) 4 (10) 0 (0)
 Only received explanation regarding drug 5 1 (3) 3 (8) 1 (5) 3 (8) 1 (3) 1 (5)
 Don’t know/don’t remember 7 4 (10) 2 (5) 1 (5) 0 (0) 5 (13) 2 (10)

Methods of doctors delivering information 0.103 0.427
 One-on-one consultation (without materials) 98 40 (100) 38 (95) 20 (100) 39 (98) 39 (98) 20 (100)
 Use of brochures/booklets 19 8 (20) 6 (15) 5 (25) 10 (25) 5 (13) 4 (10)
 Use of visual materials 10 2 (5) 8 (20) 0 (0) 4 (10) 4 (10) 2 (10)
 Others 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 No explanation 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Satisfaction level on doctor’s explanation 0.361 0.756
 Not satisfied 23 8 (20) 12 (30) 3 (15) 6 (15) 12 (30) 5 (25)
 Satisfied 77 32 (80) 28 (70) 17 (85) 34 (85) 28 (70) 15 (75)

Reason of dissatisfaction (N=18) 0.426 0.297
 N 18 4 9 5 8 8 2
 Too short consultation time 11 (61) 3 (75) 6 (67) 2 (40) 4 (50) 3 (63) 2 (100)
 Too difficult explanation 5 (28) 0 (0) 3 (33) 2 (40) 1 (13) 3 (38) 1 (50)
 Insufficient explanation 4 (22) 2 (50) 1 (11) 1 (20) 3 (38) 1 (13) 0 (0)
 Lack of HCP’s empathy and emotional interaction 2 (11) 1 (25) 0 (0) 1 (20) 2 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Response to the doctor after feeling dissatisfaction (N=9) 0.794 0.213
 N 9 2 4 3 4 4 1
 Asked HCPs immediately 5 (56) 1 (50) 3 (75) 1 (33) 3 (75) 2 (50) 0 (0)
 Asked HCPs during the next treatment 2 (22) 1 (50) 0 (0) 1 (33) 2 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 Asked nurse after treatment 2 (22) 0 (0) 1 (25) 1 (33) 1 (25) 0 (0) 1 (100)
 Visited other hospital/HCPs after the treatment for inquiry 2 (22) 0 (0) 1 (25) 1 (33) 1 (25) 1 (25) 0 (0)
 Referred to hospital brochures and pamphlets 1 (11) 0 (0) 1 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (25) 0 (0)
 Searched web portal for information 1 (11) 0 (0) 1 (25) 0 (0) 1 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 No action taken 2 (22) 1 (50) 0 (0) 1 (33) 0 (0) 2 (50) 0 (0)

The data is presented as N (%).

Endo, endocrinology; OS, orthopedic surgery; GY, gynecology; HCP, healthcare personnel.

Table 4

Patient knowledge on osteoporosis

Total (N=100) Specialty Age (yr)


Endo (N=40) OS (N=40) GY (N=20) P-value 60–69 (N=40) 70–79 (N=40) ≥80 (N=20) P-value
Self-perceived level of awareness 0.779 0.313
 Not aware 45 19 (48) 17 (43) 9 (45) 17 (43) 16 (41) 12 (60)
 Well aware 55 21 (53) 23 (58) 11 (55) 21 (53) 24 (60) 8 (40)

Osteoporosis symptoms 0.999 0.989
 Bones breaking easily from small impacts 91 38 (95) 34 (85) 19 (95) 36 (90) 37 (93) 18 (90)
 Loss of height 87 35 (88) 33 (83) 19 (95) 33 (83) 38 (95) 16 (80)
 Severe pain caused by fractures 84 35 (88) 31 (78) 18 (90) 36 (90) 32 (80) 16 (80)
 Stooped posture 82 33 (83) 30 (75) 19 (95) 32 (80) 34 (85) 16 (80)
 No particular symptoms 55 22 (55) 20 (50) 13 (65) 21 (53) 26 (65) 8 (40)

Osteoporosis causes 0.994 0.995
 Aging 95 40 (100) 35 (88) 20 (100) 38 (95) 38 (95) 19 (95)
 Lack of nutrition 91 38 (95) 36 (90) 17 (85) 39 (98) 35 (88) 17 (85)
 Menopause 88 36 (90) 33 (83) 19 (95) 38 (95) 36 (90) 14 (70)
 Underlying disease 81 35 (88) 30 (75) 16 (80) 33 (83) 31 (78) 17 (85)
 Lifestyle 71 28 (70) 28 (70) 15 (75) 32 (80) 36 (90) 13 (65)
 Family history 60 29 (73) 21 (53) 10 (50) 28 (70) 20 (50) 12 (60)
 Drug 51 19 (48) 18 (45) 14 (70) 23 (58) 19 (48) 9 (45)

Risk Related 0.979 0.996
 Once a fracture occurs, the movement becomes limited and daily life becomes difficult 88 37 (93) 33 (83) 18 (90) 36 (90) 35 (88) 17 (85)
 Once a fracture occurs, the risk of re-fracture increases three to five times 70 33 (83) 22 (55) 15 (75) 27 (68) 30 (75) 13 (65)
 A quarter of osteoporosis patients experience fracture again within a year 63 31 (78) 19 (48) 13 (65) 28 (70) 25 (63) 10 (50)
 If osteoporosis causes hip bone fractures, 1.5 out of 10 people die within a year 63 25 (63) 24 (60) 14 (70) 25 (63) 25 (63) 13 (65)
 The risk of death from a femur fracture equals that of breast cancer, four times higher than that of endometrial cancer 53 22 (55) 20 (50) 11 (55) 22 (55) 23 (58) 8 (40)

Treatment related 1.000 0.996
 Treatment for fracture prevention is essential since osteoporosis patients are at high risk of re-fracture 92 39 (98) 33 (83) 20 (100) 38 (95) 38 (95) 16 (80)
 Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that requires lifetime care 87 37 (93) 31 (78) 19 (95) 37 (93) 34 (85) 16 (80)
 Even if BMD score improves, drug administration should be maintained 87 36 (90) 32 (80) 19 (95) 36 (90) 35 (88) 16 (80)

Perceived Severity 0.070 0.551
 Not severe 13 3 (8) 9 (23) 1 (5) 5 (13) 4 (11) 4 (20)
 Severe 87 37 (93) 31 (78) 19 (95) 35 (88) 36 (90) 16 (80)

The data is presented as N (%).

Endo, endocrinology; OS, orthopedic surgery; GY, gynecology; BMD, bone mineral density.

Table 5

Source of information related to osteoporosis

Total (N=100) Specialty Age (yr)


Endo (N=40) OS (N=40) GY (N=20) P-value 60–69 (N=40) 70–79 (N=40) ≥80 (N=20) P-value
Information channel when diagnosed 0.742 0.323
  Doctor 95 38 (95) 40 (100) 17 (85) 38 (95) 37 (93) 20 (100)
  Nurse 25 8 (20) 13 (33) 4 (20) 11 (28) 8 (20) 6 (30)
  In-hospital brochure 14 6 (15) 3 (8) 5 (25) 7 (18) 4 (10) 3 (15)
  Hospital website 1 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Pharmacist 7 3 (8) 4 (10) 0 (0) 4 (10) 2 (5) 1 (5)
 Mass media 30 12 (30) 12 (30) 6 (30) 13 (33) 14 (35) 3 (15)
  TV health-related shows 27 12 (30) 11 (28) 4 (20) 11 (28) 13 (33) 3 (15)
  TV news 9 2 (5) 4 (10) 3 (15) 6 (15) 3 (8) 0 (0)
  TV advertisements 3 2 (5) 1 (3) 0 (0) 2 (5) 0 (0) 1 (5)
 Internet 10 5 (13) 4 (10) 1 (5) 10 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Digital advertising 5 3 (8) 1 (3) 1 (5) 5 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Blog 5 2 (5) 3 (8) 0 (0) 5 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 Family/acquaintances 53 21 (53) 18 (45) 14 (70) 22 (55) 20 (50) 11 (55)

Preferred information channel 0.337 0.162
 Hospital/PHA 77 31 (78) 30 (75) 16 (80) 30 (75) 31 (78) 16 (80)
  Doctor 68 29 (73) 25 (63) 14 (70) 25 (63) 27 (68) 16 (80)
  Nurse 5 2 (5) 1 (3) 2 (10) 3 (8) 2 (5) 0 (0)
  In-hospital brochure/poster 2 0 (0) 2 (5) 0 (0) 2 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Hospital website 1 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0)
  Pharmacist 1 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0)
 Mass media 13 2 (5) 7 (18) 4 (20) 3 (8) 8 (20) 2 (10)
  TV health-related shows 10 1 (3) 6 (15) 3 (15) 1 (3) 7 (18) 2 (10)
  TV news 2 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (5) 2 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  TV advertisements 1 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0)
 Internet 5 3 (8) 2 (5) 0 (0) 5 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Digital advertising 4 3 (8) 1 (3) 0 (0) 4 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Blog 1 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 Family/acquaintances 5 4 (10) 1 (3) 0 (0) 2 (5) 1 (3) 2 (10)

Most truthful information channel 0.999 0.999
  Doctor 94 39 (98) 36 (90) 19 (95) 35 (88) 39 (98) 20 (100)
  Nurse 1 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  In-hospital brochure 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Hospital website 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Pharmacist 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  TV health-related shows 2 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (5) 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0)
  TV news 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  TV advertisements 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Digital advertising 1 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
  Blog 1 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 Family/acquaintances 1 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 Websites of government agencies 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Additional information required by patients 0.799 0.940
 What are the side effects of the drug? 39 12 (30) 20 (50) 7 (35) 21 (53) 12 (30) 6 (30)
 How long do I have to take the medicine? 37 15 (38) 15 (38) 7 (35) 19 (48) 12 (30) 6 (30)
 Good exercises for bone management? 36 13 (33) 14 (35) 9 (45) 13 (33) 17 (43) 6 (30)
 Diet good for bone management? 32 13 (33) 12 (30) 7 (35) 11 (28) 14 (35) 7 (35)
 Effects of the drug 30 9 (23) 15 (38) 6 (30) 15 (38) 11 (28) 4 (20)
 Is it possible to take it with other drugs? 30 11 (28) 12 (30) 7 (35) 14 (35) 11 (28) 5 (25)
 What are the causes of osteoporosis? 22 7 (18) 10 (25) 5 (25) 10 (25) 10 (25) 2 (10)
 What are other available drugs other than the current drug? 15 7 (18) 6 (15) 2 (10) 6 (15) 6 (15) 3 (15)
 How do I take/administer the medicine? 14 5 (13) 9 (23) 0 (0) 6 (16) 8 (20) 0 (0)
 What are the ingredients of the drug? 8 1 (3) 4 (10) 3 (15) 5 (13) 2 (5) 1 (5)
 Others 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (5) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 No question 14 7 (18) 4 (10) 3 (15) 5 (13) 7 (18) 2 (10)

The data is presented as N (%).

Endo, endocrinology; OS, orthopedic surgery; GY, gynecology; PHA, periodic health assessment.