Osteoporosis knowledge, health beliefs, and healthy bone behaviours in patients on androgen‐deprivation therapy ( <scp>ADT</scp> ) for prostate cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? There is an increase in use and duration of androgen‐deprivation therapy ( ADT ) in patients with prostate cancer. ADT can cause decreased bone mineral density and lean muscle loss, putting these patients at increased risk of fracture. Guidelines exist for the prevention and management of bone loss in this population; however, data suggests that most patients are not receiving proper screening, evaluation, or treatment for bone loss. Research to date suggests that patients on ADT are unaware of the risks and side‐effects of ADT and that most are not engaging in important preventative behaviours, e.g. calcium and vitamin D intake. To our knowledge, there are no studies in patients on ADT specifically assessing patients' osteoporosis ( OP ) knowledge, self‐efficacy, and feelings of susceptibility towards OP and their relationships to engagement in recommended healthy bone behaviours. We think that these data will aid in the development of health promotion uptake strategies that are directly targeted to this patient population. Objectives To describe in patients with prostate cancer, receiving androgen‐deprivation therapy ( ADT ): (i) knowledge, self‐efficacy ( SE ), and health beliefs about osteoporosis ( OP ); (ii) current engagement in healthy bone behaviours ( HBBs ). To explore the relationships between knowledge, SE , and health beliefs, and engagement in HBBs . Patients and Methods 175 patients receiving ADT by injection completed questionnaires assessing current HBBs , OP knowledge, SE , and health beliefs (motivation, perceived susceptibility, and seriousness). Descriptive statistics and independent samples t ‐tests were used to assess relationships between knowledge, SE , health beliefs, and engagement in HBBs . Results Only 38% of patients had undergone a dual X ‐ray absorptiometry scan in the past 2 years. OP knowledge was low (mean [ sd , range] 9.6 [4.4, 0–19]) and perceived SE moderate (84.7 [24.5, 0–120]). Health motivation was fairly high (23.6 [3.1, 6–30]), but perceived susceptibility (16.8 [4.3]) and seriousness (16.8 [4.2]) of OP were low. Few patients met the recommendations for vitamin D intake (42%) and exercise (31%), and 15% were at risk of over‐supplementation of calcium. Patients taking calcium supplements ( P = 0.04), and meeting guidelines for vitamin D ( P = 0.008) and for exercise ( P = 0.002) had significantly greater knowledge than those who did not. Patients who were engaging in less than four of five HBBs had lower knowledge ( P < 0.001) and health motivation ( P = 0.01) than those who were engaging in four or all five HBBs . Conclusions Most patients who are receiving ADT are not receiving appropriate screening, lack basic information about bone health, and are not engaging in the appropriate HBBs
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».