Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Osteoporos Int. 2019 Mar 11. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-04913-y. [Epub ahead of print]

Evidence of patient beliefs, values, and preferences is not provided in osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines.

Author information

1
Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada. salej@smh.ca.
2
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada. salej@smh.ca.
3
Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada.
4
Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.

Abstract

We examined how patient beliefs, values, and preferences (BVPs) were included and conceptualized in international osteoporosis guidelines. The majority of guidelines did not mention BVPs. When mentioned, BVPs were conceptualized as preference for one medication over another. A broader conceptualization and inclusion of BVPs should be incorporated in osteoporosis guidelines.

INTRODUCTION:

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which osteoporosis guidelines reflected patients' beliefs, values, and preferences (BVPs); (2) how BVPs were conceptualized; and (3) the methods used to elicit BVPs in the references cited by the guidelines.

METHODS:

We conducted a document analysis of English-language international osteoporosis guidelines based on the International Osteoporosis Foundation website. We examined each guideline and extracted all instances of statements pertaining to BVPs. The statements were reviewed by two independent researchers. Discrepancies in data extraction were resolved by the first author. We developed categories based on five common elements that represented the BVP statements.

RESULTS:

Twenty-seven of 70 (39%) guidelines included 95 statements about patient BVPs. Of the 95 statements, 32 statements (14 guidelines) were classified under BVP related to the choice of pharmacotherapy or general treatment, 10 (7 guidelines) under BVP related to adherence to pharmacotherapy or treatment in general, 5 (5 guidelines) under BVP related to financial costs and benefits, 43 (19 guidelines) under other BVP mentioned but not supported by a reference to a primary study or systematic review, and 5 (3 guidelines) under other BVP mentioned and supported by at least one reference to a primary study or systematic review. Twenty-nine references were cited to reflect the BVPs mentioned, including an editorial and quantitative studies.

CONCLUSIONS:

Twenty-seven (39%) of the guidelines included mention of patients' BVPs. In 19 guidelines, the importance of BVPs was mentioned but these statements were not supported by references to a primary study or systematic review. BVPs were most often (14 guidelines) conceptualized as preference for one medication over another. We suggest that qualitative data be included as evidence of BVPs in guidelines.

KEYWORDS:

Clinical practice guidelines; Osteoporosis; Patient beliefs; Patient perspective; Patient preferences; Patient values

PMID:
30859238
DOI:
10.1007/s00198-019-04913-y

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center