PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Nooshin K. Rotondi AU - Dorcas E. Beaton AU - Rebeka Sujic AU - Joanna E.M. Sale AU - Hina Ansari AU - Victoria Elliot-Gibson AU - Earl R. Bogoch AU - John Cullen AU - Ravi Jain AU - Morgan Slater AU - and the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy Fracture Clinic Screening Program Evaluation Team TI - Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Osteoporosis Treatment Associated with Improved Outcomes: An Observational Cohort Study AID - 10.3899/jrheum.170915 DP - 2018 Nov 01 TA - The Journal of Rheumatology PG - 1594--1601 VI - 45 IP - 11 4099 - http://www.jrheum.org/content/45/11/1594.short 4100 - http://www.jrheum.org/content/45/11/1594.full SO - J Rheumatol2018 Nov 01; 45 AB - Objective. To identify and address patient-reported barriers in osteoporosis care after a fracture.Methods. A longitudinal cohort of fragility fracture patients over 50 years of age was seen in a provincewide fracture liaison service. Followup interviews were done at 6 months for osteoporosis care indicators. Univariate statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics, osteoporosis-related outcomes, and reasons cited for not achieving them. Two phases of this program were compared (Phase I: education and communication, and Phase II: risk assessment education and communication). Phase II was further divided into those who fully participated and those who declined.Results. Phase I (n = 3997) had lower testing and treatment rates than Phase II (n = 1363). Rates were highest in those confirmed as having participated in Phase II (n = 569). Phase II nonparticipants (n = 794) had results as in Phase I. In Phase I, the main patient-reported barriers for not visiting their physician or not having a bone mineral density (BMD) test were patient- and physician-oriented (e.g., being instructed by their physician to not have the BMD test). In Phase II, BMD testing was part of the program, thus the main barriers were around treatment choices. Phase II eligible nonparticipants experienced many of the same barriers as Phase I patients, with lower BMD testing rates (54.9% and 65.4%, respectively).Conclusion. Evaluating and addressing barriers to guideline implementation reduced those barriers and was associated with higher downstream treatment rates. Monitoring barriers in a program like this provides useful insights for program changes and research interventions.