BACKGROUND: Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled. RESULTS: Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants' attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation.

Summary: Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation. Purpose: the clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the ‘model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation’ within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study. Methods: a Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was ‘essential’ and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content. Results: Seventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps. Conclusions: This Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.

Summary: Patient information is important to help patients fully participate in their healthcare. Commonly accessed osteoporosis patient information resources were identified and assessed for readability, quality, accuracy and consistency. Resources contained inconsistencies and scored low when assessed for quality and readability. We recommend optimal language and identify information gaps to address. Introduction: the purpose of this paper is to identify commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment, appraise the quality and make recommendations for improvement. Methods: Patient information resources were purposively sampled and text extracted. Data extracts underwent assessment of readability (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) and quality (modified International Patient Decision Aid Standards (m-IPDAS)). A thematic analysis was conducted, and keywords and phrases were used to describe osteoporosis and its treatment identified. Findings were presented to a stakeholder group who identified inaccuracies and contradictions and discussed optimal language. Results: Nine patient information resources were selected, including webpages, a video and booklets (available online), from government, charity and private healthcare providers. No resource met acceptable readability scores for both measures of osteoporosis information and drug information. Quality scores from the modified IPDAS ranged from 21 to 64% (7–21/33). Thematic analysis was informed by Leventhal’s Common-Sense Model of Disease. Thirteen subthemes relating to the identity, causes, timeline, consequences and controllability of osteoporosis were identified. Phrases and words from 9 subthemes were presented to the stakeholder group who identified a predominance of medical technical language, misleading terms about osteoporotic bone and treatment benefits, and contradictions about symptoms. They recommended key descriptors for providers to use to describe osteoporosis and treatment benefits. Conclusions: This study found that commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis have highly variable quality, scored poorly on readability assessments and contained inconsistencies and inaccuracies. We produced practical recommendations for information providers to support improvements in understanding, relevance, balance and bias, and to address information gaps.

Introduction Prevention of fragility fractures, a source of significant economic and personal burden, is hindered by poor uptake of fracture prevention medicines. Enhancing communication of scientific evidence and elicitation of patient medication-related beliefs has the potential to increase patient commitment to treatment. The Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) programme aims to develop and evaluate a theoretically informed, complex intervention consisting of a computerised web-based decision support tool, training package and information resources, to facilitate informed decision-making about fracture prevention treatment, with a long-Term aim of improving informed treatment adherence. This protocol focuses on the iFraP Development (iFraP-D) work. Methods and analysis the approach to iFraP-D is informed by the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation framework and the three-step implementation of change model. The context for the study is UK fracture liaison services (FLS), which enact secondary fracture prevention. An evidence synthesis of clinical guidelines and Delphi exercise will be conducted to identify content for the intervention. Focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians and general practitioners and a usual care survey will facilitate understanding of current practice, and investigate barriers and facilitators to change. Design of the iFraP intervention will be informed by decision aid development standards and theories of implementation, behaviour change, acceptability and medicines adherence. The principles of co-design will underpin all elements of the study through a dedicated iFraP community of practice including key stakeholders and patient advisory groups. In-practice testing of the prototype intervention will inform revisions ready for further testing in a subsequent pilot and feasibility randomised trial. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (19/NW/0559). Dissemination and knowledge mobilisation will be facilitated through national bodies and networks, publications and presentations. Trial registration number researchregistry5041.

Background: the prevention of self-harm is an international public health priority. It is vital to identify at-risk populations, particularly as self-harm is a risk factor for suicide. This study aims to examine the risk of self-harm in people with vertebral fractures. Methods: Retrospective cohort study. Patients with vertebral fracture were identified within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and matched to patients without fracture by sex and age. Incident self-harm was defined by primary care record codes following vertebral fracture. Overall incidence rates (per 10,000 person-years (PY)) were reported. Cox regression analysis determined risk (hazard ratios (HR), 95 % confidence interval (CI)) of self-harm compared to the matched unexposed cohort. Initial crude analysis was subsequently adjusted and stratified by median age and sex. Results: the number of cases of vertebral fracture was 16,293, with a matched unexposed cohort of the same size. Patients were predominantly female (70.1 %), median age was 76.3 years. Overall incidence of self-harm in the cohort with vertebral fracture was 12.2 (10.1, 14.8) /10,000 PY. There was an initial crude association between vertebral fracture and self-harm, which remained after adjustment (HR 2.4 (95 %CI 1.5, 3.6). Greatest risk of self-harm was found in those with vertebral fractures who were aged below 76.3 years (3.2(1.8, 5.7)) and male (3.9(1.8, 8.5)). Conclusions: Primary care patients with vertebral fracture are at increased risk of self-harm compared to people without these fractures. Male patients aged below 76 years of age appear to be at greatest risk of self-harm. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential for self-harm in this patient group.

Objective to explore the acceptability of different bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of osteoporosis among patients, clinicians and managers, payers and academics. Design a 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. Setting Any developed country healthcare setting. Participants Patients, healthcare professionals, managers, payers and academics. Intervention Experiences and views of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates. Results Twenty-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. Conclusion By 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 number CRD42019143526.