Women's Perceptions of Future Risk After Low-Energy Fractures at Midlife
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Low-energy fractures experienced by women at midlife and beyond place them at increased risk of future fractures and may be early indicators of low bone density. We report here on women's postfracture narratives to provide insight into how family physicians might tailor their messages to patients in communicating risk. METHODS: An interview guide was used in face-to-face interviews with women aged 40 years and older. Patients were asked to describe their fracture experience and recovery during the subsequent year. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was done initially using an immersion-crystallization approach. RESULTS: Twenty-two women participated in this research. The analysis showed women's reactions to information about their risk fell into 3 groups. The first took a laissez faire approach, preferring to wait and see what the future held. The second group recognized some of the things they should be doing but were inconsistent in maintaining changes or seeking relevant information. The third group saw information about future risk as salient and important to their daily lives. They actively sought out information, including discussions with their family physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Discovering whether patients have had an injury and, if so, how they perceive future risk is important because the invisibility of this health hazard calls for vigilance early on in women's lives. Family physicians can help patients move from perceiving the fractures as isolated accidents to understanding them as indicators of future risk by discussing the importance of bone health in the short and long term.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".