Table 2.
Profile of participants regarding their wishes, experience, and self-assessment of fracture risk
| All (n = 332) | Canada, Hamilton (n = 31) | Canada, COPN (n = 30) | USA, California (n = 35) | USA, Washington (n = 29) | Mexico (n = 36) | Argentina (n = 30) | The Netherlands (n = 19) | Belgium (n = 30) | UK (n = 29) | Spain (n = 28) | Japan (n = 35) | p-value2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Importance to know FR (1–7)1 | 6.22 ± 1.40 | 6.39 ± 1.28 | 6.60 ± 1.08 | 6.6 ± 1.06 | 6.25 ± 1.27 | 6.19 ± 1.89 | 6.23 ± 1.30 | 5.79 ± 1.69 | 4.97 ± 1.6 | 6.34 ± 1.11 | 6.79 ± 0.63 | 6.11 ± 1.39 | < 0.001 |
| Importance to know FR > 5 | 285 (85.8) | 25 (88.6) | 28 (93.3) | 33 (94.3) | 25 (86.2) | 30 (83.3) | 24 (80.0) | 15 (78.9) | 21 (70.0) | 27 (93.1) | 27 (96.4) | 30 (85.7) | 0.08 |
| Previous communication of FR | |||||||||||||
| Yes | 185 (55.7) | 21 (67.7) | 27 (90.0) | 22 (62.9) | 18 (62.1) | 31 (86.1) | 14 (46.7) | 11 (57.9) | 5 (16.7) | 14 (48.3) | 22 (78.6) | 0 (0.0) | < 0.001 |
| Remembered level of risk communicated | 156 (47.0) | 21 (67.7) | 22 (73.3) | 15 (42.8) | 15 (51.7) | 25 (80.6) | 12 (40.0) | 8 (42.1) | 5 (16.7) | 13 (44.8) | 20 (71.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| No | 124 (37.3) | 7 (22.6) | 3 (10.0) | 11 (31.4) | 11 (37.9) | 3 (8.3) | 11 (36.7) | 4 (21.1) | 19 (63.3) | 15 (51.7) | 5 (17.9) | 35 (100.0) | |
| Unsure | 23 (6.9) | 3 (9.7) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (5.7) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (5.6) | 5 (16.7) | 4 (21.1) | 6 (20.0) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Self-assessment of FR | |||||||||||||
| Low | 62 (18.7) | 14 (45.2) | 5 (16.7) | 10 (28.6) | 5 (17.2) | 2 (5.6) | 7 (23.3) | 1 (5.3) | 10 (33.3) | 1 (3.4) | 2 (7.1) | 5 (14.3) | < 0.001 |
| Moderate | 100 (30.1) | 10 (32.3) | 11 (36.7) | 11 (31.4) | 9 (31.0) | 4 (11.1) | 12 (40.0) | 4 (21.1) | 9 (30.0) | 7 (24.1) | 10 (35.7) | 13 (37.1) | |
| High | 110 (33.1) | 6 (19.4) | 12 (40.0) | 8 (22.9) | 9 (31.0) | 7 (19.4) | 6 (20.0) | 11 (57.9) | 4 (13.3) | 18 (62.1) | 14 (50.0) | 15 (42.9) | |
| Do not know | 59 (17.8) | 1 (3.2) | 2 (6.7) | 6 (17.1) | 5 (17.2) | 23 (63.9) | 5 (16.7) | 3 (15.8) | 7 (23.3) | 3 (10.3) | 2 (7.1) | 2 (5.7) | |
NB. Quantitative variables are expressed in mean ± SD; binary and categorical variables are expressed in absolute and relative frequencies, n (%)
FR fracture risk
1Scale for importance to know fracture risk: not important l (1), very important (7)
2p-values assessing statistical differences between countries were obtained using a Chi2 test (or exact Fisher test) for categorical/binary variables and using a one-way ANOVA for quantitative variables
FR fracture risk