4.6 Article

An Outreach Intervention Increases Bone Densitometry Testing in Older Women

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 341-347

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02111.x

Keywords

patient outreach; patient recall; osteoporosis screening; bone densitometry; DXA; primary prevention; aging

Funding

  1. American Cancer Society [MRSG-06-081-CPPB]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the performance of a patient recall intervention that relies on an outreach coordinator with a bachelor's degree to prompt women by mail and telephone about their eligibility for bone densitometry (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)) screening and allow them to schedule an examination without a medical provider visit ahead of time. Observational. Academic general internal medicine practice. Mail- and telephone-based patient recall for DXA. Five hundred sixty-four women aged 65 to 79 at average risk for osteoporosis without a history of DXA. Rates of DXA completion and the change in proportion of screened women during a 7-month intervention period, case finding for clinically significant bone loss, frequency of appropriate clinical follow-up, DXA no-show rates compared with usual care, and clinician satisfaction. Through patient recall, rates of DXA screening rose significantly (P <.001), and the proportion of the eligible clinic population screened increased 13%. Thirty percent of patients had clinically significant bone loss, with almost all of these receiving follow-up. DXA no-show rates were comparable with usual care, and provider acceptance was high. A patient recall intervention substantially increased DXA screening, allowing pharmacological therapy to be started much earlier in some women with significant bone loss. It imposed minimal burden on providers and enhanced patient convenience. This type of program may have utility for additional preventive services.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available