Dataset Information

Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a general population survey.

ABSTRACT: This is the first national study of public and patient research priorities in osteoporosis and fracture. We have identified new research areas of importance to members of the public, particularly 'access to information from health professionals'. The findings are being incorporated into the research strategy of the National Osteoporosis Society.

Purpose

This study aimed to prioritise, with patients and public members, research topics for the osteoporosis research agenda.

Methods

An e-survey to identify topics for research was co-designed with patient representatives. A link to the e-survey was disseminated to supporters of the UK National Osteoporosis Society (NOS) in a monthly e-newsletter. Responders were asked to indicate their top priority for research across four topics (understanding and preventing osteoporosis, living with osteoporosis, treating osteoporosis and treating fractures) and their top three items within each topic. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographics and item ranking. A latent class analysis was applied to identify a substantive number of clusters with different combinations of binary responses.

Results

One thousand one hundred eighty-eight (7.4%) respondents completed the e-survey. The top three items overall were 'Having easy access to advice and information from health professionals' (63.8%), 'Understanding further the safety and benefit of osteoporosis drug treatments' (49.9%) and 'Identifying the condition early by screening' (49.2%). Latent class analysis revealed distinct clusters of responses within each topic including primary care management and self-management. Those without a history of prior fracture or aged under 70 were more likely to rate items within the cluster of self-management as important (21.0 vs 12.9 and 19.8 vs 13.3%, respectively).

Conclusion

This is the first study of public research priorities in osteoporosis and has identified new research areas of importance to members of the public including access to information. The findings are being incorporated into the research strategy of the National Osteoporosis Society.

SUBMITTER: Paskins Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5409917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:UNLABELLED:An international consensus process identified the following research priorities in osteoporosis and exercise: study of exercise in high-risk cohorts, evaluation of multimodal interventions, research examining translation into practice and a goal to examine fracture outcomes. INTRODUCTION:To identify future research priorities related to exercise for people with osteoporosis with and without osteoporotic spine fracture via international consensus. METHODS:An international expert panel and representatives from Osteoporosis Canada led the process and identified opinion leaders or stakeholders to contribute. A focus group of four patient advocates identified quality of life, mobility, activities of daily living, falls, bone mineral density, and harms as outcomes important for decision-making. Seventy-five individuals were invited to participate in an online survey asking respondents to define future research priorities in the area of osteoporosis and exercise; the response rate was 57%. Fifty-five individuals from seven countries were invited to a half-day consensus meeting; 60% of invitees attended. The results of the online survey, knowledge synthesis activities, and results of the focus group were presented. Nominal group technique was used to come to consensus on research priorities. RESULTS:Research priorities included the study of exercise in high-risk cohorts (e.g., ? 65 years, low BMD, moderate/high risk of fracture, history of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, hyperkyphotic posture, functional impairments, or sedentary), the evaluation of multimodal interventions, research examining translation into practice, and a goal to examine fracture outcomes. The standardization of outcomes or protocols that could be evolved into large multicentre trials was discussed. CONCLUSIONS:The research priorities identified as part of the Too Fit To Fracture initiative can be used to inform the development of multicentre collaborations to evaluate and implement strategies for engaging individuals with osteoporosis in a safe and effective exercise.

Project description:BackgroundLithium, an established psychiatric medication, has recently been shown to enhance new bone formation in preclinical fracture models. Current research is focused on evaluating the efficacy of low-dose, short-term lithium treatment to improve long bone fracture healing through a Phase II randomized clinical trial (LiFT NCT02999022). In working towards future applications of lithium for fracture management, this study aimed to understand the current perceptions of lithium as a psychiatric drug and the potential barriers to its orthopaedic adoption.MethodsThree questionnaires, evaluating knowledge about lithium and willingness to embrace its use in fracture healing were disseminated among the general population, fracture patients eligible for the LiFT (Lithium for Fracture Treatment) trial and orthopaedic surgeons across Canada.ResultsOf the 768 public respondents, 84% were willing to take a medication that would aid fracture healing but only 62.6% if the medication was lithium. Willingness dropped to 44.6% among the 168 respondents who knew about the psychiatric use of lithium. Lack of sufficient knowledge (n = 50) and concerns about side effects including effects on the brain (n = 74) were the main reasons cited by those who were unwilling to use lithium. Of the 29 fracture patients, only 20 patients had previously heard of lithium. Of these, 40% were willing to take lithium for fracture healing with an additional 10% if the dose was low or if the intake duration was short. Only 50% knew that lithium has side effects. Of the 43 orthopaedic surgeons, 38 surgeons knew about clinical use of lithium. Of these, 68% knew that lithium has side effects and 29% knew that it interacts with other drugs. While most agreed that new strategies are needed to improve fracture management, only 68% were willing to prescribe lithium for fractures with an additional 16% if there is scientific evidence and/or a standard dosing protocol.ConclusionsThis study identified a lack of knowledge about uses and side effects of lithium among all three cohorts. A robust educational framework for orthopaedic surgeons, their patients and the members of their clinical care teams will be essential to widespread repurposing of lithium for fracture care.

Project description:Results of Alzheimer disease (AD) research assessments typically are not disclosed to participants. Recent research has suggested interest in disclosure, but, to our knowledge, few studies have accounted for awareness of potential benefits and limitations of disclosure.To determine the attitudes of cognitively normal research participants and members of the general public regarding disclosure of AD research results.Participants in a longitudinal aging study (Alzheimer Disease Research Center [ADRC]) were given preintervention and postintervention surveys about disclosure attitudes. In a general public sample (The American Panel Survey), participants responded to a similar survey about disclosure attitudes.Participants in the ADRC sample were randomly assigned to a group (n = 119) that read an education intervention about the usefulness of AD biomarkers or to a placebo group (n = 100) that read as its intervention general information about the ADRC. Participants in the general public sample read a brief vignette describing participation in a longitudinal AD study.Interest in disclosure of AD research results.Cognitively normal ADRC participants (n = 219) were 60.7% (n = 133) female, 83.6% (n = 183) of white race, and reported a mean of 15.91 years of education. Twenty-nine individuals refused participation. The American Panel Survey participants (n = 1418) indicated they did not have AD and were 50.5% (n = 716) female, 76.7% (n = 1087) of white race, and reported a mean of 13.85 years of education. Overall, 77.6% of eligible participants (1583 of 2041) completed the survey in July 2014. Interest in disclosure was high among the ADRC participants (55.1% [119 of 216] were "extremely interested"). Viewing the education intervention predicted lower interest in disclosure (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.15-3.53; P =?.02). High subjective risk of AD, a family history of AD, and minimal attendance at research meetings were associated with high interest after the intervention. In the general public, interest was lower overall (12.5% [174 of 1389] were "extremely interested"), but the subset of participants most likely to join an AD research study reported higher interest (43.5% [40 of 92] were extremely interested).Experience with AD appears to increase interest in disclosure of AD research results. Learning about potential limitations of disclosure somewhat tempered interest. These findings should inform the development of disclosure policies for asymptomatic individuals in AD studies.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization's "Coordinated Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus" outlined the need for research that focuses on the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women and children. More than one year after the first reported case significant knowledge gaps remain, highlighting the need for a coordinated approach. To address this need, the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Working Group (MNCH WG) of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition conducted an international survey to identify global research priorities for COVID-19 in maternal, reproductive and child health.MethodThis project was undertaken using a modified Delphi method. An electronic questionnaire was disseminated to clinicians and researchers in three different languages (English, French and Spanish) via MNCH WG affiliated networks. Respondents were asked to select the five most urgent research priorities among a list of 17 identified by the MNCH WG. Analysis of questionnaire data was undertaken to identify key similarities and differences among respondents according to questionnaire language, location and specialty. Following elimination of the seven lowest ranking priorities, the questionnaire was recirculated to the original pool of respondents. Thematic analysis of final questionnaire data was undertaken by the MNCH WG from which four priority research themes emerged.ResultsQuestionnaire 1 was completed by 225 respondents from 29 countries. Questionnaire 2 was returned by 49 respondents. The four priority research themes which emerged from the analysis were 1) access to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2) the direct and 3) indirect effects of COVID-19 on pregnant and breastfeeding women and children and 4) the transmission of COVID-19 and protection from infection.ConclusionThe results of these questionnaires indicated a high level of concordance among continents and specialties regarding priority research themes. This prioritized list of research uncertainties, developed to specifically highlight the most urgent clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals and researchers, could help funding organizations and researchers to answer the most pressing questions for clinicians and public health professionals during the pandemic. It is hoped that these identified priority research themes can help focus the discussion regarding the allocation of limited resources to enhance COVID-19 research in MNCH globally.