Trends and Disparities in Osteoporosis Screening Among Women in the United States, 2008-2014 - 18/04/17
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. |
Vol 130 - N° 3
P. 306-316 - mars 2017 Retour au numéroBienvenue 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 ?