Acceptability of bisphosphonates among patients, clinicians and managers: a systematic review and framework synthesis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore the acceptability of different bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of osteoporosis among patients, clinicians and managers, payers and academics.DesignA systematic review of primary qualitative studies. Seven databases were searched from inception to July 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of full-articles selected for inclusion were performed independently by two authors. A framework synthesis was applied to extracted data based on the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). The TFA includes seven domains relating to sense-making, emotions, opportunity costs, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy. Confidence in synthesis findings was assessed.SettingAny developed country healthcare setting.ParticipantsPatients, healthcare professionals, managers, payers and academics.InterventionExperiences and views of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included, mostly describing perceptions of oral bisphosphonates. We identified, with high confidence, how patients and healthcare professionals make sense (coherence) of bisphosphonates by balancing perceptions of need against concerns, how uncertainty prevails about bisphosphonate perceived effectiveness and a number of individual and service factors that have potential to increase self-efficacy in recommending and adhering to bisphosphonates. We identified, with moderate confidence, that bisphosphonate taking induces concern, but has the potential to engender reassurance, and that both side effects and special instructions for taking oral bisphosphonates can result in treatment burden. Finally, we identified with low confidence that multimorbidity plays a role in people’s perception of bisphosphonate acceptability.ConclusionBy using the lens of acceptability, our findings demonstrate with high confidence that a theoretically informed, whole-system approach is necessary to both understand and improve adherence. Clinicians and patients need supporting to understand the need for bisphosphonates, and clinicians need to clarify to patients what constitutes bisphosphonate treatment success. Further research is needed to explore perspectives of male patients and those with multimorbidity receiving bisphosphonates, and patients receiving intravenous treatment.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019143526.

Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice

“…Perceived effectiveness was conceptualised a ‘secondary domain’ meaning that patients’ perceived effectiveness of remote consulting was dependant on their perceptions of self-efficacy, ethicality, burden and opportunity costs. In previous qualitative research using the TFA, we also identified affective attitudes and intervention coherence as ‘secondary domains’ [ 18 , 31 ]. The TFA has been criticised for excluding social and environmental factors [ 32 , 33 ], although we were able to incorporate wider macro and meso level influences into our model (Fig.…”

Fragility fractures and prescriptions of medications for osteoporosis in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica: results from the PMR Cohort Study

“…Although there could be some error around reporting medication (because this was based on self-report with a tick box of medications), this suggests that prescribing of prophylactic treatment for osteoporosis was inadequate relative to PMR and osteoporosis guidelines [ 2 , 13 ]. Possible reasons for this treatment gap might be related to clinician or patient factors; both clinicians and patients have reported doubts about the need for and safety of bisphosphonates, particularly in the context of multimorbidity [ 15 ].…”

Healthcare professionals’ perceptions on barriers and facilitators to DMARD use in rheumatoid arthritis

“…As HCPs play an important role in RA management, it is important to explore their insights with regard to medication adherence in order to detect possible mismatches with the patients’ perspectives of medication use [ 17 , 18 ]. However, research about HCPs’ perspectives on factors that influence medication non-adherence is scarce [ 19 , 20 ]. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions improving medication adherence showed that interventions focussing on HCPs, significantly improved adherence among patients with chronic conditions [ 21 ].…”