Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37837494›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2023

Bone health in rural Australia: a mixed methods study of consumer needs.

Alicia R Jones, Belinda Garth, Catherine Haigh, Peter R Ebeling, Helena Teede, Amanda J Vincent

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alicia R JonesMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Vic, Melbourne, 3068, Australia. Alicia.jones@monash.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8419-7987
Belinda GarthMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Vic, Melbourne, 3068, Australia.
Catherine HaighMonash Rural Health Gippsland, Monash University, Traralgon West, Australia.
Peter R EbelingDepartment of Endocrinology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Helena TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Vic, Melbourne, 3068, Australia.
Amanda J VincentMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Vic, Melbourne, 3068, Australia.
Monash Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This mixed methods study explores osteoporosis among adults living in a regional area of Victoria, Australia. Three major themes emerged from interviews, which reflected the findings of surveys, concerns regarding the adequacy of care in rural areas, a desire for tailored, local care, and a desire for hybrid telemedicine or in-person services. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis or osteopenia affects over half of adults aged over 50 years. People living outside major cities in Australia have higher hip fracture rates than people living in cities, along with reduced access to bone densitometry and osteoporosis specialists. This study explores osteoporosis risk factors, knowledge, experiences of and preferences for care in people living in a regional area, to inform development of osteoporosis care programs.

methodsAdults living in a large non-metropolitan region of Australia were invited to participate in a mixed methods study: a survey (phase 1) followed by semi-structured interviews (phase 2) with triangulation of results. Data collected included osteoporosis diagnosis, risk factors, management, knowledge, preferences for care and experience using telemedicine. Surveys were analysed quantitatively, with linear and logistic regression used to assess factors related to osteoporosis knowledge or satisfaction with telemedicine. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis by two researchers, with in-depth discussion to identify themes.

resultsSixty-two participants completed the survey, and 15 completed interviews. The mean (SD) age of survey participants was 62.2 (14.1) years, 57% had a screening test for osteoporosis, and 12 (19%) had a diagnosis of osteoporosis. The mean osteoporosis knowledge score was 8.4 / 19 and did not differ with age, education, or history of osteoporosis. The majority wanted access to more information about osteoporosis but preferred method differed, and the majority preferred in-person medical consultations to telemedicine. Interview participants were aged between 57 and 87 years, and included 8 with osteoporosis or osteopenia. Three major themes emerged: concerns regarding the adequacy of care in rural areas, a desire for tailored local car and a desire for hybrid telemedicine or in-person services.

conclusionGaps exist in rural osteoporosis care, including knowledge, screening and management. People have differing experiences of care, access to services and preferences for care. High-quality care, tailored to their needs, was preferred. Improving osteoporosis services for regional Australia will require a flexible, multi-faceted approach, addressing needs of the local community and providers.

Indexed as

Bone Diseases, MetabolicOsteoporosisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBone DensityHumansMiddle AgedRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesVictoriaConsumer preferenceOsteoporosisQualitative researchRural healthRural health services

Identifiers

PMID37837494
PMCPMC10576660
OpenAlexW4387642092

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.