A programmatic approach to osteoporosis treatment: insight from a 20-year longitudinal study
Authors' conclusion
Over two decades, our osteoporosis team reported significantly higher treatment rates than national averages. Overall treatment rates were similar between patients seen in osteoporosis and specialty clinic; however, the osteoporosis clinic reported higher rates than the specialty or PCP clinic in time-stratified analysis and PCP clinic overall.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with osteoporosis, 2002–2022 (median age 76)
- Participants
- 44,135 patient records
- Exposure
- Osteoporosis clinic vs specialty clinic vs PCP clinics
- Outcome
- Osteoporosis treatment rates in patients seen in a structured osteoporosis clinic, compared with the national benchmark
Methodological detailslongitudinal, seven 3-year time periods, chi-square, Fisher's exact tests or logistic regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE)
- Longitudinal
- Seven 3-year time periods
- Chi-square, Fisher's exact tests or logistic regression with GEE
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Osteoporosis clinic vs Specialty clinic: P = 0.124 · Osteoporosis clinic vs PCP: P < 0.0001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Treatment rate, 5-year — Osteoporosis clinic vs Specialty clinic
P = 0.856
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| Treatment rate, 5-yearOsteoporosis clinic vs PCP | P < 0.0001 |
Treatment rate trend over time (all patients)
- 3-year treatment rate declined 73.9% to 56.5%
- P = 0.003
- 5-year treatment rate declined 72.7% to 47.4%
- P < 0.0001
Treatment rates by insurance type, race and gender
- Similar by insurance type and race
- Women had higher overall treatment rates than men
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →