Loading…

Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis—the ROSE trial

Summary Population-based screening for osteoporosis is still controversial and has not been implemented. Non-participation in systematic screening was evaluated in 34,229 women age 65–81 years. Although participation rate was high, non-participation was associated with comorbidity, aging other risk...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Osteoporosis international 2017-12, Vol.28 (12), p.3389-3399
Main Authors: Rothmann, M. J., Möller, S., Holmberg, T., Højberg, M., Gram, J., Bech, M., Brixen, K., Hermann, A. P., Glüer, C.-C., Barkmann, R., Rubin, K. H.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-62804e78f0c1001c58397a3d8a80b58b17ab7f9743ad36b32acb380f471451383
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-62804e78f0c1001c58397a3d8a80b58b17ab7f9743ad36b32acb380f471451383
container_end_page 3399
container_issue 12
container_start_page 3389
container_title Osteoporosis international
container_volume 28
creator Rothmann, M. J.
Möller, S.
Holmberg, T.
Højberg, M.
Gram, J.
Bech, M.
Brixen, K.
Hermann, A. P.
Glüer, C.-C.
Barkmann, R.
Rubin, K. H.
description Summary Population-based screening for osteoporosis is still controversial and has not been implemented. Non-participation in systematic screening was evaluated in 34,229 women age 65–81 years. Although participation rate was high, non-participation was associated with comorbidity, aging other risk factors for fractures, and markers of low social status, e.g., low income, pension, and living alone. A range of strategies is needed to increase participation, including development of targeted information and further research to better understand the barriers and enablers in screening for osteoporosis. Introduction Participation is crucial to the success of a screening program. The objective of this study was to analyze non-participation in Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, a two-step population-based screening program for osteoporosis. Methods Thirty-four thousand two hundred twenty-nine women aged 65 to 81 years were randomly selected from the background population and randomized to either a screening group (intervention) or a control group. All women received a self-administered questionnaire designed to allow calculation of future risk of fracture based on FRAX. In the intervention group, women with an estimated high risk of future fracture were invited to DXA scanning. Information on individual socioeconomic status and comorbidity was obtained from national registers. Results A completed questionnaire was returned by 20,905 (61%) women. Non-completion was associated with older age, living alone, lower education, lower income, and higher comorbidity. In the intervention group, ticking “not interested in DXA” in the questionnaire was associated with older age, living alone, and low self-perceived fracture risk. Women with previous fracture or history of parental hip fracture were more likely to accept screening by DXA. Dropping out when offered DXA, was associated with older age, current smoking, higher alcohol consumption, and physical impairment. Conclusions Barriers to population-based screening for osteoporosis appear to be both psychosocial and physical in nature. Women who decline are older, have lower self-perceived fracture risk, and more often live alone compared to women who accept the program. Dropping out after primary acceptance is associated not only with aging and physical impairment but also with current smoking and alcohol consumption. Measures to increase program participation could include targeted information and reducing
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00198-017-4205-y
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1936264751</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2008064927</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-62804e78f0c1001c58397a3d8a80b58b17ab7f9743ad36b32acb380f471451383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMotlYfwI0MuHETPbnMJFmK1AuKghdwFzJppkbayZhMF935ED6hT2KkXkBwFZJ8_5-cD6FdAocEQBwlAKIkBiIwp1Di5RoaEs4Ypqoq19EQFBNYcfI4QFspPUPOKCU20YBKKUpaiiG6vA4t7kzsvfWd6X1oC98WaZl6N89bWyQbnWt9Oy2aEIuQz0MXYkg-vb--9U-uuL25Gxd99Ga2jTYaM0tu52sdoYfT8f3JOb66Obs4Ob7CljPZ44pK4E7IBmyegthSMiUMm0gjoS5lTYSpRaMEZ2bCqppRY2smoeGC8JIwyUboYNXbxfCycKnXc5-sm81M68IiaaJYRSsuMjxC-3_Q57CIbf6dpgASKq6oyBRZUTYPlqJrdBf93MSlJqA_TeuVaZ1N60_Tepkze1_Ni3ruJj-Jb7UZoCsg5at26uLv0_-3fgByR4lE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2008064927</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis—the ROSE trial</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Rothmann, M. J. ; Möller, S. ; Holmberg, T. ; Højberg, M. ; Gram, J. ; Bech, M. ; Brixen, K. ; Hermann, A. P. ; Glüer, C.-C. ; Barkmann, R. ; Rubin, K. H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rothmann, M. J. ; Möller, S. ; Holmberg, T. ; Højberg, M. ; Gram, J. ; Bech, M. ; Brixen, K. ; Hermann, A. P. ; Glüer, C.-C. ; Barkmann, R. ; Rubin, K. H.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Population-based screening for osteoporosis is still controversial and has not been implemented. Non-participation in systematic screening was evaluated in 34,229 women age 65–81 years. Although participation rate was high, non-participation was associated with comorbidity, aging other risk factors for fractures, and markers of low social status, e.g., low income, pension, and living alone. A range of strategies is needed to increase participation, including development of targeted information and further research to better understand the barriers and enablers in screening for osteoporosis. Introduction Participation is crucial to the success of a screening program. The objective of this study was to analyze non-participation in Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, a two-step population-based screening program for osteoporosis. Methods Thirty-four thousand two hundred twenty-nine women aged 65 to 81 years were randomly selected from the background population and randomized to either a screening group (intervention) or a control group. All women received a self-administered questionnaire designed to allow calculation of future risk of fracture based on FRAX. In the intervention group, women with an estimated high risk of future fracture were invited to DXA scanning. Information on individual socioeconomic status and comorbidity was obtained from national registers. Results A completed questionnaire was returned by 20,905 (61%) women. Non-completion was associated with older age, living alone, lower education, lower income, and higher comorbidity. In the intervention group, ticking “not interested in DXA” in the questionnaire was associated with older age, living alone, and low self-perceived fracture risk. Women with previous fracture or history of parental hip fracture were more likely to accept screening by DXA. Dropping out when offered DXA, was associated with older age, current smoking, higher alcohol consumption, and physical impairment. Conclusions Barriers to population-based screening for osteoporosis appear to be both psychosocial and physical in nature. Women who decline are older, have lower self-perceived fracture risk, and more often live alone compared to women who accept the program. Dropping out after primary acceptance is associated not only with aging and physical impairment but also with current smoking and alcohol consumption. Measures to increase program participation could include targeted information and reducing physical barriers for attending screening procedures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0937-941X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-2965</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4205-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28875257</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Springer London</publisher><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods ; Age ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Aging ; Alcohol ; Comorbidity ; Denmark ; Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry ; Endocrinology ; Female ; Fractures ; Humans ; Mass Screening - methods ; Mass Screening - psychology ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Original Article ; Orthopedics ; Osteoporosis ; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - diagnosis ; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - psychology ; Osteoporotic Fractures - etiology ; Osteoporotic Fractures - prevention &amp; control ; Osteoporotic Fractures - psychology ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care - psychology ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Patient Dropouts - psychology ; Patient Dropouts - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Patient Participation ; Population ; Questionnaires ; Rheumatology ; Risk assessment ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Risk factors ; Smoking ; Social interactions ; Socioeconomic Factors ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Osteoporosis international, 2017-12, Vol.28 (12), p.3389-3399</ispartof><rights>International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2017</rights><rights>Osteoporosis International is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-62804e78f0c1001c58397a3d8a80b58b17ab7f9743ad36b32acb380f471451383</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-62804e78f0c1001c58397a3d8a80b58b17ab7f9743ad36b32acb380f471451383</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28875257$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rothmann, M. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Möller, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holmberg, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Højberg, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gram, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bech, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brixen, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hermann, A. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glüer, C.-C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barkmann, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubin, K. H.</creatorcontrib><title>Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis—the ROSE trial</title><title>Osteoporosis international</title><addtitle>Osteoporos Int</addtitle><addtitle>Osteoporos Int</addtitle><description>Summary Population-based screening for osteoporosis is still controversial and has not been implemented. Non-participation in systematic screening was evaluated in 34,229 women age 65–81 years. Although participation rate was high, non-participation was associated with comorbidity, aging other risk factors for fractures, and markers of low social status, e.g., low income, pension, and living alone. A range of strategies is needed to increase participation, including development of targeted information and further research to better understand the barriers and enablers in screening for osteoporosis. Introduction Participation is crucial to the success of a screening program. The objective of this study was to analyze non-participation in Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, a two-step population-based screening program for osteoporosis. Methods Thirty-four thousand two hundred twenty-nine women aged 65 to 81 years were randomly selected from the background population and randomized to either a screening group (intervention) or a control group. All women received a self-administered questionnaire designed to allow calculation of future risk of fracture based on FRAX. In the intervention group, women with an estimated high risk of future fracture were invited to DXA scanning. Information on individual socioeconomic status and comorbidity was obtained from national registers. Results A completed questionnaire was returned by 20,905 (61%) women. Non-completion was associated with older age, living alone, lower education, lower income, and higher comorbidity. In the intervention group, ticking “not interested in DXA” in the questionnaire was associated with older age, living alone, and low self-perceived fracture risk. Women with previous fracture or history of parental hip fracture were more likely to accept screening by DXA. Dropping out when offered DXA, was associated with older age, current smoking, higher alcohol consumption, and physical impairment. Conclusions Barriers to population-based screening for osteoporosis appear to be both psychosocial and physical in nature. Women who decline are older, have lower self-perceived fracture risk, and more often live alone compared to women who accept the program. Dropping out after primary acceptance is associated not only with aging and physical impairment but also with current smoking and alcohol consumption. Measures to increase program participation could include targeted information and reducing physical barriers for attending screening procedures.</description><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Aging</subject><subject>Alcohol</subject><subject>Comorbidity</subject><subject>Denmark</subject><subject>Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry</subject><subject>Endocrinology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - psychology</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Osteoporosis</subject><subject>Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - diagnosis</subject><subject>Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - psychology</subject><subject>Osteoporotic Fractures - etiology</subject><subject>Osteoporotic Fractures - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Osteoporotic Fractures - psychology</subject><subject>Patient Acceptance of Health Care - psychology</subject><subject>Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Dropouts - psychology</subject><subject>Patient Dropouts - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Participation</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Rheumatology</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Social interactions</subject><subject>Socioeconomic Factors</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0937-941X</issn><issn>1433-2965</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMotlYfwI0MuHETPbnMJFmK1AuKghdwFzJppkbayZhMF935ED6hT2KkXkBwFZJ8_5-cD6FdAocEQBwlAKIkBiIwp1Di5RoaEs4Ypqoq19EQFBNYcfI4QFspPUPOKCU20YBKKUpaiiG6vA4t7kzsvfWd6X1oC98WaZl6N89bWyQbnWt9Oy2aEIuQz0MXYkg-vb--9U-uuL25Gxd99Ga2jTYaM0tu52sdoYfT8f3JOb66Obs4Ob7CljPZ44pK4E7IBmyegthSMiUMm0gjoS5lTYSpRaMEZ2bCqppRY2smoeGC8JIwyUboYNXbxfCycKnXc5-sm81M68IiaaJYRSsuMjxC-3_Q57CIbf6dpgASKq6oyBRZUTYPlqJrdBf93MSlJqA_TeuVaZ1N60_Tepkze1_Ni3ruJj-Jb7UZoCsg5at26uLv0_-3fgByR4lE</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>Rothmann, M. J.</creator><creator>Möller, S.</creator><creator>Holmberg, T.</creator><creator>Højberg, M.</creator><creator>Gram, J.</creator><creator>Bech, M.</creator><creator>Brixen, K.</creator><creator>Hermann, A. P.</creator><creator>Glüer, C.-C.</creator><creator>Barkmann, R.</creator><creator>Rubin, K. H.</creator><general>Springer London</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis—the ROSE trial</title><author>Rothmann, M. J. ; Möller, S. ; Holmberg, T. ; Højberg, M. ; Gram, J. ; Bech, M. ; Brixen, K. ; Hermann, A. P. ; Glüer, C.-C. ; Barkmann, R. ; Rubin, K. H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-62804e78f0c1001c58397a3d8a80b58b17ab7f9743ad36b32acb380f471451383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Aging</topic><topic>Alcohol</topic><topic>Comorbidity</topic><topic>Denmark</topic><topic>Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry</topic><topic>Endocrinology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - psychology</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Osteoporosis</topic><topic>Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - diagnosis</topic><topic>Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - psychology</topic><topic>Osteoporotic Fractures - etiology</topic><topic>Osteoporotic Fractures - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Osteoporotic Fractures - psychology</topic><topic>Patient Acceptance of Health Care - psychology</topic><topic>Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Dropouts - psychology</topic><topic>Patient Dropouts - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Participation</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Rheumatology</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Social interactions</topic><topic>Socioeconomic Factors</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rothmann, M. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Möller, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holmberg, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Højberg, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gram, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bech, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brixen, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hermann, A. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glüer, C.-C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barkmann, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubin, K. H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Osteoporosis international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rothmann, M. J.</au><au>Möller, S.</au><au>Holmberg, T.</au><au>Højberg, M.</au><au>Gram, J.</au><au>Bech, M.</au><au>Brixen, K.</au><au>Hermann, A. P.</au><au>Glüer, C.-C.</au><au>Barkmann, R.</au><au>Rubin, K. H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis—the ROSE trial</atitle><jtitle>Osteoporosis international</jtitle><stitle>Osteoporos Int</stitle><addtitle>Osteoporos Int</addtitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>3389</spage><epage>3399</epage><pages>3389-3399</pages><issn>0937-941X</issn><eissn>1433-2965</eissn><abstract>Summary Population-based screening for osteoporosis is still controversial and has not been implemented. Non-participation in systematic screening was evaluated in 34,229 women age 65–81 years. Although participation rate was high, non-participation was associated with comorbidity, aging other risk factors for fractures, and markers of low social status, e.g., low income, pension, and living alone. A range of strategies is needed to increase participation, including development of targeted information and further research to better understand the barriers and enablers in screening for osteoporosis. Introduction Participation is crucial to the success of a screening program. The objective of this study was to analyze non-participation in Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, a two-step population-based screening program for osteoporosis. Methods Thirty-four thousand two hundred twenty-nine women aged 65 to 81 years were randomly selected from the background population and randomized to either a screening group (intervention) or a control group. All women received a self-administered questionnaire designed to allow calculation of future risk of fracture based on FRAX. In the intervention group, women with an estimated high risk of future fracture were invited to DXA scanning. Information on individual socioeconomic status and comorbidity was obtained from national registers. Results A completed questionnaire was returned by 20,905 (61%) women. Non-completion was associated with older age, living alone, lower education, lower income, and higher comorbidity. In the intervention group, ticking “not interested in DXA” in the questionnaire was associated with older age, living alone, and low self-perceived fracture risk. Women with previous fracture or history of parental hip fracture were more likely to accept screening by DXA. Dropping out when offered DXA, was associated with older age, current smoking, higher alcohol consumption, and physical impairment. Conclusions Barriers to population-based screening for osteoporosis appear to be both psychosocial and physical in nature. Women who decline are older, have lower self-perceived fracture risk, and more often live alone compared to women who accept the program. Dropping out after primary acceptance is associated not only with aging and physical impairment but also with current smoking and alcohol consumption. Measures to increase program participation could include targeted information and reducing physical barriers for attending screening procedures.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Springer London</pub><pmid>28875257</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00198-017-4205-y</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0937-941X
ispartof Osteoporosis international, 2017-12, Vol.28 (12), p.3389-3399
issn 0937-941X
1433-2965
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1936264751
source Springer Nature
subjects Absorptiometry, Photon - methods
Age
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aging
Alcohol
Comorbidity
Denmark
Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry
Endocrinology
Female
Fractures
Humans
Mass Screening - methods
Mass Screening - psychology
Medical screening
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Article
Orthopedics
Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - diagnosis
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - psychology
Osteoporotic Fractures - etiology
Osteoporotic Fractures - prevention & control
Osteoporotic Fractures - psychology
Patient Acceptance of Health Care - psychology
Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data
Patient Dropouts - psychology
Patient Dropouts - statistics & numerical data
Patient Participation
Population
Questionnaires
Rheumatology
Risk assessment
Risk Assessment - methods
Risk factors
Smoking
Social interactions
Socioeconomic Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
title Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis—the ROSE trial
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T09%3A54%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Non-participation%20in%20systematic%20screening%20for%20osteoporosis%E2%80%94the%20ROSE%20trial&rft.jtitle=Osteoporosis%20international&rft.au=Rothmann,%20M.%20J.&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3389&rft.epage=3399&rft.pages=3389-3399&rft.issn=0937-941X&rft.eissn=1433-2965&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00198-017-4205-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2008064927%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-62804e78f0c1001c58397a3d8a80b58b17ab7f9743ad36b32acb380f471451383%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2008064927&rft_id=info:pmid/28875257&rfr_iscdi=true