Patient education following vertebral fragility fracture: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vertebral fragility fracture (VFF) incidence is rising with significant associated patient and health service burden. Patient education is core to effective VFF management and thus the focus of this robust literature review. Eight studies met review inclusion criteria with the limited evidence and inconsistent approach to education post VFF illustrated. PURPOSE: The incidence of vertebral fragility fracture is rising, associated with osteoporosis among an ageing global population. Most VFFs are managed conservatively with patient education, a core element of conservative management. This review aims to identify and synthesise the available literature regarding healthcare professional (HCP)-led patient education post VFF. METHODS: This review was registered on OSF [25] and conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology [21] for scoping reviews and guided by the Arksey and O'Malley Framework [22], using five key stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting the data and (5) charting, collecting and summarising the data. Six databases (Pubmed, ERIC, Embase, Cinahl, APA PsychINFO and Cochrane) were searched for papers published (in English) from January 2008 to November 2023, using a clearly defined search strategy. Predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria were used for screening papers using Covidence software [26] and a minimum of two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from full-text articles which met the inclusion criteria, with narrative synthesis of findings. Reporting of results adhered to the PRISMA-Scoping review checklist. RESULTS: Title and abstract screening was conducted for the 7177 retrieved studies. Of the 34 papers identified for full text review, 8 studies (from Canada, Norway, Sweden, China and the UK) met the scoping review inclusion criteria. These included four randomised controlled trials, one pilot RCT, one non RCT one retrospective analysis of data from patients with fragility fractures and one pre-post interventional study. Where specified in the papers, education providers were a mix of healthcare professionals (Physiotherapists, Nurses, Doctors, Dietitians, Occupational Therapists). Education was delivered in a variety of settings using verbal, written and visual communication media. The most common education topics were exercise, osteoporosis, nutrition and falls management. A diversity of outcome measures captured patient knowledge, quality of life, falls efficacy, physical function, balance and pain. CONCLUSION: Findings of this review demonstrate the limited evidence and an inconsistent approach to education post VFF in terms of education topics, mode of delivery and outcome measures. A range of HCP disciplines deliver education. Research is critically needed to inform the development and delivery of effective, evidence-based education interventions for VFF management.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".