OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 led to rapid uptake of digital health care. We sought to examine digital access, health and digital literacy, and impact on confidence and satisfaction with remote consultations in people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). METHODS: People with IRDs (n = 2024) were identified from their electronic health record and invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey, using short message service (SMS) and postal approaches. Data were collected on demographics, self-reported diagnosis, access to and use of internet-enabled devices, health and digital literacy, together with confidence and satisfaction with remote consultations. Ethical approval was obtained (Ref 21/PR/0867). RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-nine (639) people completed the survey [mean (s.d.) age 64.5 (13.1) years, 384 (60.1%) female]. Two hundred and eighty-seven (44.9%) completed it online. One hundred and twenty-six (19.7%) people reported not having access to an internet-enabled device. Ninety-three (14.6%) reported never accessing the internet; this proportion was highest (23%) in people with RA. One hundred and seventeen (18%) reported limited health literacy. Even in those reporting internet use, digital literacy was only moderate. People with limited health or digital literacy or without internet access were less likely to report confidence or satisfaction with remote consultations. CONCLUSION: Limited health and digital literacy, lack of digital access and low reported internet use were common, especially in older people with RA. People with limited health literacy or limited digital access reported lower confidence and satisfaction with remote consultations. Digital implementation roll-out needs to take account of people requiring extra support to enable them to access care digitally or risks exacerbating health inequalities.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the longer term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the self-reported physical and mental health of people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). METHODS: Two thousand twenty-four patients with IRDs were randomly selected from electronic health records. Survey invitations were sent (August 2021 coinciding with relaxation of UK COVID-19 restrictions) using SMS and postal approaches. Self-reported data included demographics, shielding status and physical (MSK-HQ) and mental health (PHQ8 and GAD7). RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-nine people completed the survey (mean (SD) age 64.5 (13.1) years, 384 (60%) female). Moderate/severe impact of the pandemic on physical and mental health was reported by 250 (41%) and 241 (39%) respectively. One hundred seventy-two (29%) reported moderate/severe depression (PHQ8 ≥ 10) and 135 (22%) moderate/severe anxiety (GAD7 ≥ 10). Females reported greater impacts of the pandemic on physical health (44% vs 34%), mental health (44% vs 34%), arthritis symptoms (49% vs 36%) and lifestyle factors (weight gain and reduced exercise and physical activity) than males. The physical and mental impacts were less in people with RA compared with other IRDs. Physical health impacts did not differ between age groups, but younger patients reported greater impacts on mental health. CONCLUSION: the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the physical and mental health of people with IRDs. These effects were greatest in females. Recovery needs to address the negative impact of the pandemic on lifestyle factors to minimise the long-term impacts for people with IRDs. Key Points • the pandemic had a significant impact on long term physical and mental health in almost 40% of people with IRDs. • the impact of the pandemic was greater in women for physical health, mental health and arthritis symptoms. • Many people reported negative pandemic impacts on lifestyle factors including weight and physical activity.

OBJECTIVES: People with RA taking DMARDs require safety monitoring to identify potential side effects. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of patients and family members on DMARD monitoring and how the associated treatment burden could be minimized to optimize concordance and safety. METHODS: Thirteen adults with RA on DMARDs and three family members participated in semi-structured telephone interviews between July 2021 and January 2022. Data were analysed using a framework method. Findings were discussed with a group of stakeholders to develop implications for practice. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified: (i) making sense of drug monitoring; and (ii) work involved in drug monitoring. Participants perceived DMARDs as necessary to reduce symptoms, with drug monitoring providing an opportunity for a holistic assessment of wellbeing. Participants expressed a preference for face-to-face consultations, which allowed them to share their concerns, rather than remote, often transactional, care. The limited availability of convenient appointment times, travel requirements and parking increased the work involved for patients and family members. CONCLUSION: Drug monitoring was accepted as a necessity of DMARD treatment, but increased the work for people with RA related to organizing and attending appointments. The potential for treatment burden needs to be assessed proactively by clinicians when a DMARD is commenced. Where identified, strategies for minimizing the treatment burden can form part of a shared management plan, including the offer of regular contact with health professionals, with an emphasis on person-centred care.

BackgroundIncrease in presentations of self-harm to primary care, a risk factor of suicide, has led to a growing interest in identifying at-risk populations.AimTo examine whether osteoporosis or fractures are risk factors for self-harm, suicidal ideation, and suicide.Design and settingThis was a systematic review of observational studies in adults (>18 years) that had examined the role of osteoporosis and/or fractures in subsequent self-harm, suicidal ideation, and/or suicide.MethodSix databases were searched from inception to July 2019. Additional citation tracking of eligible studies was undertaken in November 2022. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of full-text articles were performed independently by at least two authors. Where possible, meta-analysis was run on comparable risk estimates.ResultsFifteen studies were included: two examined the outcome of self-harm, three suicidal ideation, and 10 suicide. In approximately half of studies on osteoporosis, the risk of suicidal ideation and suicide remained significant. However, pooling of adjusted odds ratios from three studies indicated no association between osteoporosis and suicide (1.14, 95% confidence interval = 0.88 to 1.49). Nine studies examined the risk of a mixture of fracture types across different outcomes, limiting comparisons. However, all studies examining vertebral fracture (n= 3) reported a significant adjusted negative association for self-harm and suicide.ConclusionPatients with vertebral fractures, a risk potential factor for suicide, may benefit from clinical case finding for mood disorders with personalised primary care management. However, because of the limited number and quality of studies and mixed findings, further examination of these associations is warranted.

PURPOSE: Hip fracture is common in older people - with prevalence even higher for people with dementia. Research often excludes people with dementia - especially those in the more advanced stages. Therefore, the most appropriate interventions remain unknown. The main aim of this study was to gain consensus about the core considerations needed to deliver a physical intervention for people with advanced dementia who fracture their hip. Materials and Methods: an expert consensus process was undertaken, using Nominal Group Technique, to explore the key considerations when delivering rehabilitation. Data collection was undertaken in January 2023 and involved an online group discussion followed by voting and off-line rating. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative analysis of consensus scoring was undertaken. An international group of seven highly specialised physiotherapists took part. RESULTS: 59 statements were agreed following the process. Content analysis was used to categorise these statements according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Although consensus levels were high, there was disagreement in several areas. CONCLUSION: the statements provide an overarching understanding of the multidisciplinary expertise that is needed to effectively deliver rehabilitation interventions to this population. People with dementia require highly skilled and trained professionals, providing holistic and person-centred approaches to deliver rehabilitation interventions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe expert consensus provides an overarching understanding of the multidisciplinary expertise that is needed to effectively deliver rehabilitation interventions to this population.Physiotherapy - or other interventions - cannot be used in isolation.People with dementia require highly skilled and trained professionals, providing holistic and person-centred approaches to deliver rehabilitation interventions.While our focus was on hip fracture, we suggest these statements can be used for people with advanced dementia with a variety of other conditions.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to explore healthcare professionals’ principles for providing and delivering rehabilitation interventions for people with advanced dementia.DesignThis was a qualitative study with three focus groups undertaken virtually. The data were analysed using a process of reflexive thematic analysis in order to gain an in-depth understanding of rehabilitation principles for this population.Setting and participants20 healthcare professionals who were specialists in treating and rehabilitating people with advanced dementia were recruited. These healthcare professionals had a wide range of experience in a variety of different settings including primary care, secondary care as well as specialist mental health teams. Purposive sampling focused on the requirement for participants to have significant experience of treating people with dementia. Participants were from the UK and Denmark. Data collection was undertaken during August and September 2022.ResultsThree overarching themes were developed following analysis—organisational culture, knowledge and personal values of the healthcare professional. The first explored how the culture of an organisation affects a person with advanced dementia as well as the healthcare professional. The organisation needed to promote positive approaches to person-centred care and provide effective situational leadership to embed such approaches. Knowledge was a key consideration and was closely linked to the personal values of the healthcare professional, which formed the final theme. This study suggests that the interrelationship of these three factors influences the outcomes for the person with dementia and effective outcomes required consideration of all domains.ConclusionsEffective interventions for people with advanced dementia require the healthcare professional to have the knowledge about dementia and positive personal values, but the culture of the organisation is also key to ensure that the healthcare professional is able to deliver successful interventions.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune, inflammatory, systemic condition that requires specific drug treatment to suppress disease activity and prevent joint deformity. To manage the ongoing symptoms of joint pain and fatigue patients are encouraged to engage in self-management activities. People with RA have an increased incidence of serious illness and mortality, with the potential to impact on quality of life. This study explored patients' experiences of living with RA on physical, psychological and social well-being as well as their ability to employ self-management skills during the coronavirus pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative, longitudinal (baseline, 16 September to 23 November 2020 and after 2-4 months, 11 January to the 17 January 2021), semistructured telephone interviews. SETTING: a rheumatology service based in a community hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 15 adults with RA. MAIN OUTCOMES: Data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were identified that related to impact on (1) fear: the dominant emotion, (2) social connections and work practices, (3) physical health, (4) identity and (5) self-management as a coping mechanism. The overriding emotion was one of fear, which remained high throughout both interviews. The negative impact on social well-being increased as the pandemic progressed. Conversely, physical health was not affected at either time point, although participants reported difficulty in interpreting whether physical symptoms were attributable to their RA or COVID-19. Recognition of increased vulnerability led to a reassessment of self-identity; however, respondents reported using previously learnt self-management techniques to cope in the context of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: the main impact was on emotional and social well-being. Levels of fear and vulnerability which affected self-identity remained high throughout the pandemic and the impact on social well-being increased over time. Physical health remained largely unaffected. Self-management skills were used to maintain a sense of well-being.

Abstract
.
. Background/Aims
. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the widespread adoption of remote consultations. Whilst remote consultations offer many potential advantages to patients and healthcare services, they are unlikely to be suitable for all. Guidance encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences when choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations. However, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for remote consultations, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consultations among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis.
.
.
. Methods
. Data for this study derived from three UK qualitative studies: iFraP (improving fracture prevention study), Blast Off (BO; Bisphosphonate aLternAtive regimenS for the prevenTion of Osteoporotic Fragility Fractures), and ERA (Exploring people with Rheumatoid Arthritis’ experience of the pandemic). Each study explored patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare during the pandemic year. Transcripts from each data set relating to remote consulting were extracted. A minimum of two study team members worked independently, following a consistent approach, to conduct a rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). The TFA consists of 7 constructs to understand acceptability of, in this context, remote consultations, including: affective attitudes; intervention coherence; perceived effectiveness; burden; self-efficacy; opportunity-costs; and ethicality. Following coding, the findings of all three studies were pooled. Analysis was facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations.
.
.
. Results
. Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people, who had mostly experienced telephone consultations, were included the analysis. Participants’ emotional attitudes to remote consultations, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense making (intervention coherence) varied according to their specific needs for the consultation and values, relative to the pandemic context; participants perceived remote consultations as making more sense and being ‘fairer’ earlier in the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with remote consultations, while others highly valued, and did not want to give up, non-verbal communication or physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs); although perceived need for physical examination in participants with RA was associated with strong preference for face-to-face consultations, asymptomatic participants with RA and osteoporosis also expressed similar strong preferences. Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in remote consultations and others perceived remote consultations as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication.
.
.
. Conclusion
. Acceptability of, and preferences for remote consultation appear to be influenced by a range of societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not fixed, or condition-dependent. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation. The findings have supported the development of patient-centred recommendations for practice that should be considered alongside clinician-focused recommendations when deciding whether remote consultations are appropriate.
.
.
. Disclosure
. Z. Paskins: Grants/research support; NIHR, Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy. L. Bullock: None. F. Manning: Grants/research support; part funded NIHR Clinical Research Network Scholar Programme. S. Bishop: None. P. Campbell: None. E. Cottrell: None. C. Jinks: Grants/research support; part funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. M. Narayanasamy: None. I. Scott: Grants/research support; funded by an NIHR Advanced Research Fellowship Award (NIHR300826). O. Sahota: None. S. Ryan: None.
.

Abstract
.
. Background/Aims
. The COVID-19 pandemic placed patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at increased risk of poor outcomes as a result of their condition, compounded by use of immunosuppressant medication, and higher prevalence of comorbidities. As a consequence, some patients were instructed within the UK to follow strict guidelines to “shield”, severely restricting routine social interactions. This study explored patients’ longitudinal experiences of living with RA during the COVID-19 pandemic.
.
.
. Methods
. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, from a community hospital-based rheumatology service, participated in two semi-structured telephone interviews at baseline in autumn 2020 and 2-4 months later. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was undertaken by two members of the research team with input from two patient partners (KR and MB).
.
.
. Results
. 15 participants (9 females, 10 retired, age range 45-79 years) were interviewed twice. Five themes were identified: i) fear, ii) social wellbeing, iii) physical health, iv) pre-existing self-management of RA as a coping mechanism, and v) vulnerability. The overriding emotion was one of fear of contracting COVID-19, which remained high throughout both interviews. Fear was influenced by patients’ existing knowledge of their RA and medications and the presence of other significant co-morbidities. Further influences on fear included mainstream media reports (increasing reporting of deaths and new variants) and personal knowledge (family and friends who had contracted COVID-19). The impact on social wellbeing became more pronounced as remote communications could not replicate the benefits of physical interaction. Participants reported no impact on their physical health, with increased rest resulting from restricted social interaction perceived to be beneficial. Many participants utilised the resilience they had learned as a result of having RA to cope, including stress management, pacing, and exercise. Being categorised as “clinically extremely vulnerable” led to a reassessment of self-identity, with participants not wanting to be perceived as being weak or helpless. Finally, many participants used lockdown to reflect on and reassess their personal priorities.
.
.
. Conclusion
. This longitudinal interview study with 15 people with RA highlights that the main impact of the pandemic appeared to be on emotional wellbeing brought about by fear of COVID-19, later compounded by lack of social interaction. In this small study, participants’ physical health was reported to be stable and participants were able to use self-management skills to cope. The realisation of the seriousness of contracting COVID-19 led to feelings of vulnerability and a reassessment of self-identity. The study raises important issues for those providing healthcare to people with RA, including effective communication with awareness of its likely impact, using pre-existing self-management strategies to enhance wellbeing, and recognition of the potential for social isolation and the implications thereof.
.
.
. Disclosure
. P. Campbell: None. Z. Paskins: None. S. Hider: None. A. Hassell: None. F. Crawford-Manning: None. K. Rule: None. M. Brooks: None. S. Ryan: None.
.

OBJECTIVE: People with inflammatory arthritis have an increased incidence of serious illness and mortality, placing them at risk of poor outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study explored patients' perceptions of risk from COVID-19 over a longitudinal period of the pandemic. METHODS: Fifteen adults with inflammatory arthritis attending a National Health Service rheumatology service each took part in three semi-structured telephone interviews conducted between 16 September 2020 and 29 July 2021. Interpretive phenomenological analysis was undertaken by two researchers and two public contributors. RESULTS: Four main themes relating to perceptions of risk from COVID-19 were identified: inflammatory arthritis; medications and co-morbidities; immediate social environment; health policy communication; and media influence. Participants recognized that having inflammatory arthritis increased their individual risk. Perceptions of risk and associated fear increased during the pandemic, influenced by family/friends who had had COVID-19 and health policy communications. The perceived constant use of negative messages led to many participants disengaging with the media. At the final interviews, when the vaccination programme was well established, participants continued to assess the risk and benefits of engaging in activities. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the breadth of factors that influenced perceptions of risk in people with an inflammatory arthritis. As health professionals, we have only a small sphere of influence over some of these factors, namely health-care communications. People with inflammatory arthritis appropriately knew that their condition increased their infection risk, but more could be done to consider how and to what extent we involve patients in explaining risk at times of crisis.

Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure the outcomes are patient-centred and maximise its value and impact. The Musculoskeletal Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across musculoskeletal disorders. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders was used, involving four stages and two surveys, to: (1) gather research uncertainties, (2) consolidate these, (3) score uncertainties against importance and impact, and (4) analyse scoring for prioritisation. 213 people responded to the first survey and 285 people to the second, representing clinicians, researchers, and people with musculoskeletal disorders. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better treatment targeting, early diagnosis, prevention, and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities.

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.

Summary: the COVID-19 pandemic is influencing methods of healthcare delivery. In this short review, we discuss the evidence for remote healthcare delivery in the context of osteoporosis. Introduction: the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the lives of people living with, and at risk of, osteoporosis and those caring for them. With osteoporosis outpatient and Fracture Liaison Services on pause, healthcare organisations have already moved to delivering new and follow-up consultations remotely, where staffing permits, by telephone or video. Methods: in this review, we consider different models of remote care delivery, the evidence for their use, and the possible implications of COVID-19 on osteoporosis services. Results: Telemedicine is a global term used to describe any use of telecommunication systems to deliver healthcare from a distance and encompasses a range of different scenarios from remote clinical data transfer to remote clinician-patient interactions. Across a range of conditions and contexts, there remains unclear evidence on the acceptability of telemedicine and the effect on healthcare costs. Within the context of osteoporosis management, there is some limited evidence to suggest telemedicine approaches are acceptable to patients but unclear evidence on whether telemedicine approaches support informed drug adherence. Gaps in the evidence pertain to the acceptability and benefits of using telemedicine in populations with hearing, cognitive, or visual impairments and in those with limited health literacy. Conclusion: There is an urgent need for further health service evaluation and research to address the impact of remote healthcare delivery during COVID-19 outbreak on patient care, and in the longer term, to identify acceptability and cost- and clinical-effectiveness of remote care delivery on outcomes of relevance to people living with osteoporosis.