Pharmacotherapy decisions among postmenopausal women attending a group medical consultation or a one-on-one specialist consultation at an osteoporosis center: an observational cohort study
- 18 January 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Osteoporosis International
- Vol. 32 (7), 1421-1427
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-021-05823-8
Abstract
Summary Group medical visits for osteoporosis can improve access to care while being highly accepted by patients. In this study, a similar proportion of women planned to initiate pharmacotherapy after attending a group or traditional one-on-one osteoporosis consultation, indicating that the group consultation model does not produce unexpected treatment decisions. Introduction Group medical consultations for osteoporosis are time-efficient and highly accepted by patients, but effects on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to compare women’s decisions to initiate or decline osteoporosis pharmacotherapy after attending either a group or transitional one-on-one osteoporosis consultation. Methods In this observational study, we prospectively evaluated postmenopausal women referred to an osteoporosis clinic who attended a group medical visit and compared their decisions regarding pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment with retrospective data from a cohort of women who attended a traditional consultation. Both consultation types involved interaction with a specialist physician, individualized fracture risk estimation (using FRAX®), and education regarding fracture consequences and available osteoporosis medications. Both forms of consultation emphasized shared decision-making; however, group consultation attendees did not receive personalized treatment recommendations from the physician. Results We reviewed the records of 125 women (median age 63 years) who attended a group consultation and 83 women (median age 64 years) who attended a traditional consultation between 2016 and 2019. Twenty-four (19%) of the group cohort and 16 (19%) of the traditional cohort were at high 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture (FRAX® ≥ 20.0%). A similar proportion planned to initiate pharmacologic therapy after the group and traditional consultations (23% vs 16%, p = 0.22); these proportions were comparable among women at high risk (42% vs 50%, p = 0.75) and moderate risk (19% vs 15%, p = 0.77), but a higher proportion of low-risk women planned to initiate therapy after the group consultation (18% vs 0%, p = 0.009). Conclusion Patient decisions to initiate pharmacologic treatment made during a group visit are similar to those made during traditional one-on-one consultation. The group consultation model represents an alternative to one-on-one assessment for delivering osteoporosis consultative services.Keywords
Funding Information
- Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Group medical consultation for osteoporosis: a prospective pilot study of patient experience in Canadian tertiary careBritish Journal of General Practice, 2020
- At Odds About the Odds: Women’s Choices to Accept Osteoporosis Medications Do Not Closely Agree with Physician-Set Treatment ThresholdsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2019
- Osteoporosis prevention: Where are the barriers to improvement in French general practitioners? A qualitative studyPLOS ONE, 2019
- Primary care physicians’ views on osteoporosis management: a qualitative studyArchives of Osteoporosis, 2019
- A Crisis in the Treatment of OsteoporosisJournal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2016
- Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of OsteoporosisOsteoporosis International, 2014
- SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in EuropeArchives of Osteoporosis, 2013
- A population-based analysis of the post-fracture care gap 1996–2008: the situation is not improvingOsteoporosis International, 2011
- 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summaryCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2010
- OsteoporosisThe Lancet, 2006