BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis screening rates are low, and it is unclear which patient factors are associated with screening and physician recommendations for screening. OBJECTIVE:To identify patient characteristics associated with osteoporosis screening recommendations and receipt of screening in older adults. DESIGN:Cross-sectional mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS:Women and men ≥60 years old living in or near western Pennsylvania.MEASUREMENTS: Sociodemographic characteristics and osteoporosis-related data, including risk factors, physician recommendations for screening, and receipt of screening. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine odds ratios for receipt of screening and screening recommendations for individuals with particular osteoporosis risk factors, adjusting for sociodemographic and other risk factors.RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 1,268 of the 1,830 adults to whom surveys were mailed (69.3%). Most respondents were white (92.9%), female (58.7%), and believed they were in good to excellent health (88.2%). Only 47.6% said their physician recommended osteoporosis screening, and 62.6% of all respondents reported being screened. Screening recommendations were less likely for older respondents than younger ones (OR, 0.87 per 5-year increase in age; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97). Individuals with osteoporosis risk factors of a history of oral steroid use for >1 month, height loss >2.54 cm, or history of low-trauma fracture were no more likely to report screening recommendations than individuals without these characteristics. Receipt of screening was no more likely for more elderly respondents or respondents with a history of oral steroid use for >1 month than for respondents without these characteristics.CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with several known osteoporosis risk factors are not being sufficiently targeted for screening.

BACKGROUND:To evaluate the benefits of lung cancer screening, all effects of screening need to be considered. The aim of this study was to determine whether screening had an effect on healthcare use, specifically whether use increased for those with a false-positive or indeterminate screening result. METHODS: Recruited were 400 individuals participating in a lung cancer screening study at the University of Pittsburgh. Self-reported outpatient healthcare use information was collected for the 6 months before, 0 to 6 months after, and 6 to 12 months after screening. The screening outcomes were negative, indeterminate, and suspicious. Repeated-measures Poisson regression models were used to examine changes in use over time and how changes over time varied among the screening outcome groups. RESULTS: Approximately 58% of participants had a negative screening result, 36% had an indeterminate result, and approximately 6% had a suspicious result. The percentage of individuals who had any incidence of each type of outpatient use increased after screening, with the greatest increase noted for those with a suspicious screening result. Adjusted mean use significantly increased for nearly all types of use and for all 3 screening results categories in the 6 months after screening, but mostly declined to prescreening levels in the next 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient healthcare use was found to increase after screening for all individuals who were screened for lung cancer, regardless of the screening finding. The cost of the lung-related visits alone was substantial. Therefore, if lung cancer screening prevalence is increased, attendant follow-up healthcare costs are also likely to increase. Cancer 2010;116:4793-9.