Improving bone mineral density reporting to patients with an illustration of personal fracture risk

Stephanie W Edmonds, Peter Cram, Xin Lu, Douglas W Roblin, Nicole C Wright, Kenneth G Saag, Samantha L Solimeo, PAADRN Investigators, Stephanie W Edmonds, Peter Cram, Xin Lu, Douglas W Roblin, Nicole C Wright, Kenneth G Saag, Samantha L Solimeo, PAADRN Investigators

Abstract

Background: To determine patients' preferences for, and understanding of, FRAX® fracture risk conveyed through illustrations.

Methods: Drawing on examples from published studies, four illustrations of fracture risk were designed and tested for patient preference, ease of understanding, and perceived risk. We enrolled a convenience sample of adults aged 50 and older at two medical clinics located in the Midwestern and Southern United States. In-person structured interviews were conducted to elicit patient ranking of preference, ease of understanding, and perceived risk for each illustration.

Results: Most subjects (n = 142) were female (64%), Caucasian (76%) and college educated (78%). Of the four risk depictions, a plurality of participants (37%) listed a bar graph as most preferred. Subjects felt this illustration used the stoplight color system to display risk levels well and was the most "clear," "clean," and "easy to read". The majority of subjects (52%) rated the pictogram as the most difficult to understand as this format does not allow people to quickly ascertain their individual risk category.

Conclusions: Communicating risk to patients with illustrations can be done effectively with clearly designed illustrations responsive to patient preference.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01507662.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Faces array.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Arrow.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bar.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Stoplight.

References

    1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 2001;285(6):785–795. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.6.785.
    1. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Johansson H, De Laet C, Brown J, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Christiansen C, Cummings S, Eisman JA, Fujiwara S, Gluer C, Goltzman D, Hans D, Krieg MA, La Croix A, McCloskey E, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, Pols H, 3rd, Reeve J, Sanders K, Schott AM, Silman A, Torgerson D, Van Staa T, Watts NB, Yoshimura N. The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18(8):1033–1046. doi: 10.1007/s00198-007-0343-y.
    1. Cram P, Rosenthal GE, Ohsfeldt R, Wallace RB, Schlechte J, Schiff GD. Failure to recognize and act on abnormal test results: the case of screening bone densitometry. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(2):90–97.
    1. Fitt NS, Mitchell SL, Cranney A, Gulenchyn K, Huang M, Tugwell P. Influence of bone densitometry results on the treatment of osteoporosis. CMAJ. 2001;164(6):777–781.
    1. Solomon DH, Morris C, Cheng H, Cabral D, Katz JN, Finkelstein JS, Avorn J. Medication use patterns for osteoporosis: an assessment of guidelines, treatment rates, and quality improvement interventions. Mayo Clinic proceedings Mayo Clinic. 2005;80(2):194–202. doi: 10.4065/80.2.194.
    1. Pressman A, Forsyth B, Ettinger B, Tosteson AN. Initiation of osteoporosis treatment after bone mineral density testing. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(5):337–342. doi: 10.1007/s001980170099.
    1. Siris ES, Gehlbach S, Adachi JD, Boonen S, Chapurlat RD, Compston JE, Cooper C, Delmas P, Diez-Perez A, Hooven FH, Lacroix AZ, Netelenbos JC, Pfeilschifter, Rossini M, Roux C, Saag KG, Sambrook P, Silverman S, Watts NB, Wyman A, Greenspan SL. 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(1):27–35. doi: 10.1007/s00198-010-1211-8.
    1. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(2):175–183. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500203.
    1. Cadarette SM, Beaton DE, Gignac MA, Jaglal SB, Dickson L, Hawker GA. Minimal error in self-report of having had DXA, but self-report of its results was poor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(12):1306–1311. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.02.010.
    1. Pickney CS, Arnason JA. Correlation between patient recall of bone densitometry results and subsequent treatment adherence. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(9):1156–1160. doi: 10.1007/s00198-004-1818-8.
    1. Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Thabane L, DeBeer J, Cranney A, Dolovich L, Adili A, Adachi JD. Do patients perceive a link between a fragility fracture and osteoporosis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:38. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-38.
    1. Doheny MO, Sedlak CA, Estok PJ, Zeller R. Osteoporosis knowledge, health beliefs, and DXA T-scores in men and women 50 years of age and older. Orthop Nurs. 2007;26(4):243–250. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Cadarette SM, Gignac MA, Beaton DE, Jaglal SB, Hawker GA. Psychometric properties of the “Osteoporosis and You” questionnaire: osteoporosis knowledge deficits among older community-dwelling women. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18(7):981–989. doi: 10.1007/s00198-007-0326-z.
    1. Nayak S, Roberts MS, Chang CC, Greenspan SL. Health beliefs about osteoporosis and osteoporosis screening in older women and men. Health Educ J. 2010;69(3):267–276. doi: 10.1177/0017896910364570.
    1. Giangregorio L, Dolovich L, Cranney A, Adili A, Debeer J, Papaioannou A, Thabane L, Adachi JD. Osteoporosis risk perceptions among patients who have sustained a fragility fracture. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(2):213–220. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.001.
    1. Meadows LM, Mrkonjic LA, Lagendyk LE, Petersen KM. After the fall: women’s views of fractures in relation to bone health at midlife. Women Health. 2004;39(2):47–62. doi: 10.1300/J013v39n02_04.
    1. McLeod KM, McCann SE, Horvath PJ, Wactawski-Wende J. Predictors of change in calcium intake in postmenopausal women after osteoporosis screening. J Nutr. 2007;137(8):1968–1973.
    1. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37–44. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105.
    1. Schapira MM, Fletcher KE, Gilligan MA, King TK, Laud PW, Matthews BA, Neuner JM, Hayes E. A framework for health numeracy: how patients use quantitative skills in health care. J Health Commun. 2008;13(5):501–517. doi: 10.1080/10810730802202169.
    1. White S. Assessing the Nation’s Health Literacy: Key concepts and findings of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) Chicago, IL: American Medical Association FoundationIn; 2008.
    1. Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A, Adult Literacy in America . vol. NCES 93275. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; 1993. A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey.
    1. National Osteoporosis Foundation . Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis Foundation; 2008.
    1. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Chan L, Jackson R, Wells S, Kenealy T. Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(3):213–217. doi: 10.1370/afm.795.
    1. Hill S, Spink J, Cadilhac D, Edwards A, Kaufman C, Rogers S, Ryan R, Tonkin A. Absolute risk representation in cardiovascular disease prevention: comprehension and preferences of health care consumers and general practitioners involved in a focus group study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(Journal Article):108. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-108.
    1. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun. 2006;11(6):569–582. doi: 10.1080/10810730600829916.
    1. Ghosh K, Crawford BJ, Pruthi S, Williams CI, Neal L, Sandhu NP, Johnson RE, Wahner-Roedler D, Britain MK, Cha SS, Ghosh A. Frequency format diagram and probability chart for breast cancer risk communication: a prospective, randomized trial. BMC Womens Health. 2008;8(Journal Article):18. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-8-18.
    1. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risk: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07307271.
    1. Waldron CA, Gallacher J, van der Weijden T, Newcombe R, Elwyn G. The effect of different cardiovascular risk presentation formats on intentions, understanding and emotional affect: a randomised controlled trial using a web-based risk formatter (protocol) BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10(Journal Article):41. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-10-41.
    1. Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, Branda ME, Van Houten HK, Swiglo BA, Kesman RL, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, Jaeger TM, Johnson RE, Bartel GA, Melton LJ, 3rd, Wermers RA. Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med. 2011;124(6):549–556. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.013.
    1. Edmonds SW, Wolinsky FD, Christensen AJ, Lu X, Jones MP, Roblin DW, Saag KG, Cram P, The PAADRN Study A design for a randomized controlled practical clinical trial to improve bone health. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34(1):90–100. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.10.002.
    1. Dawson-Hughes B, Tosteson AN, Melton LJ, 3rd, Baim S, Favus MJ, Khosla S, Lindsay RL, National Osteoporosis Foundation Guide Committee Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(4):449–458. doi: 10.1007/s00198-008-0559-5.
    1. Price HC, Dudley C, Barrow B, Kennedy I, Griffin SJ, Holman RR. Use of focus groups to develop methods to communicate cardiovascular disease risk and potential for risk reduction to people with type 2 diabetes. Fam Pract. 2009;26(5):351–358. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp041.
    1. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jankovic A, Derry H, Smith D. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672–680. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07304449.
    1. Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588–594.
    1. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; 2011.
    1. McCaffery KJ, Dixon A, Hayen A, Jansen J, Smith S, Simpson JM. The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: a randomized experimental study. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(4):532–544. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11424926.
    1. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(1):34–43. doi: 10.1177/0272989X06297101.
    1. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):448–455. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023.
    1. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–618. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2115.
    1. Xie JZ, Tarczy-Hornoch K, Lin J, Cotter SA, Torres M, Varma R. Color vision deficiency in preschool children: the multi-ethnic pediatric eye disease study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(7):1469–1474. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.018.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit