4.5 Review

A review of patient-centred post-fracture interventions in the context of theories of health behaviour change

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 2213-2224

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-010-1521-x

关键词

Behaviour change theories; Literature review; Osteoporosis management; Post-fracture interventions

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Long Term Care of Ontario

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this literature review is to determine whether and to what extent current post-fracture osteoporosis interventions utilize theories of health behaviour change and whether those that are theory-based are more successful in producing desired behaviour changes. Studies were identified by applying additional criteria to the final selection stage of a systematic review of non-surgical osteoporosis interventions in the orthopaedic environment. We identified 42 primary studies targeted at patients and improving post-fracture osteoporosis care. As well as describing the studies (in terms of design, population, interventions, outcomes), we focused on theoretical framework and elements of behaviour change models. The 42 studies included in this review utilized a variety of postfracture interventions; however, none of them reported using an underlying theoretical base. Only three studies drew on what we felt to be elements of a theoretical framework. The lack of theoretically based studies points to a currently under-utilized area of behaviour change research that could be applied to post-fracture interventions in order to make them more effective. Despite an abundance of literature supporting theories of behaviour change, postfracture osteoporosis interventions do not report utilizing these theories. Theories of behaviour change could be applied to post-fracture osteoporosis interventions to explain why patients initiate osteoporosis management. Future research should explore the application of theories of health behaviour change to post-fracture interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据