S'abonner

Trends and Disparities in Osteoporosis Screening Among Women in the United States, 2008-2014 - 18/04/17

Doi : 10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.10.018 
Catherine W. Gillespie, PhD, MPH a, b, , Pamela E. Morin, MBA b
a AARP Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC 
b OptumLabs, Cambridge, Mass 

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Catherine W. Gillespie, PhD, MPH, AARP Public Policy Institute, 601 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20049.AARP Public Policy Institute601 E Street NWWashingtonDC20049

Abstract

Background

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends universal osteoporosis screening among women ages 65+ and targeted screening of younger women, but historically, adherence to these evidence-based recommendations has been suboptimal.

Methods

To describe contemporary patterns of osteoporosis screening, we conducted a retrospective analysis using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a database of de-identified administrative claims, which includes medical and eligibility information for over 100 million Medicare Advantage and commercial enrollees. Study participants included 1,638,454 women ages 50+ with no prior history of osteoporosis diagnosis, osteoporosis drug use, or hip fracture. Osteoporosis screening during the most recent 2-year period of continuous enrollment was assessed via medical claims. Patient sociodemographics, comorbidities, and utilization of other services were also determined using health insurance files.

Results

Overall screening rates were low: 21.1%, 26.5%, and 12.8% among women ages 50-64, 65-79, and 80+ years, respectively. Secular trends differed significantly by age (P <.001). Between 2008 and 2014, utilization among women ages 50-64 years declined 31.4%, changed little among women 65-79, and increased 37.7% among women 80+ years. Even after accounting for socioeconomic status, health status, and health care utilization patterns, non-Hispanic black women were least likely to be screened, whereas non-Hispanic Asian and Hispanic women were most likely to undergo screening. Marked socioeconomic gradients in screening probabilities narrowed substantially over time, decreasing by 44.5%, 71.9%, and 59.7% among women ages 50-64, 65-79 and 80+ years, respectively.

Conclusions

Despite significant changes in utilization of osteoporosis screening among women ages 50-64 and 80+, in line with national recommendations, tremendous deficiencies among women 65+ remain.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Disparities, Osteoporosis, Prevention, Screening


Plan


 Funding: No external funding sources were used to support this work.
 Conflict of Interest: There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 Authorship: Both authors had access to the data and a role in writing the manuscript. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of AARP or OptumLabs. CWG had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
 Study concept and design: CWG; Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: CWG, PEM; Statistical analysis: CWG; Drafting of manuscript: CWG; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: CWG, PEM. Administrative, technical, or material support: CWG, PEM; Study supervision: CWG.


© 2016  The Authors. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 130 - N° 3

P. 306-316 - mars 2017 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Cardiovascular Risks of Exogenous Testosterone Use Among Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  • G. Caleb Alexander, Geetha Iyer, Eleanor Lucas, Dora Lin, Sonal Singh
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Trends in Incidence of Hospitalized Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Cardiovascular Research Network (CVRN)
  • Kristi Reynolds, Alan S. Go, Thomas K. Leong, Denise M. Boudreau, Andrea E. Cassidy-Bushrow, Stephen P. Fortmann, Robert J. Goldberg, Jerry H. Gurwitz, David J. Magid, Karen L. Margolis, Catherine J. McNeal, Katherine M. Newton, Rachel Novotny, Charles P. Quesenberry, Wayne D. Rosamond, David H. Smith, Jeffrey J. VanWormer, Suma Vupputuri, Stephen C. Waring, Marc S. Williams, Stephen Sidney

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2025 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.