骨质疏松研究的定性见解:文献综述

IF 1.1 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Osteoporosis Pub Date : 2016-11-22 DOI:10.1155/2016/7915041
A. Bombak, H. Hanson
{"title":"骨质疏松研究的定性见解:文献综述","authors":"A. Bombak, H. Hanson","doi":"10.1155/2016/7915041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose. Much of the research on osteoporosis has been generated quantitatively. However, the qualitative osteoporosis literature provides valuable information on patient and clinician experiences and perspectives, informing the design and implementation of health research and healthcare services. To identify knowledge gaps and inform the design of future qualitative research, a narrative review was conducted to consolidate and synthesize the existing insights available within the qualitative osteoporosis research. Methods. Search terms reflecting the domains of osteoporosis and qualitative research were entered into the Scopus database to generate a comprehensive survey of qualitative research in the area of osteoporosis. Articles were thematically analysed and the results are presented in the form of a narrative review. Results. Forty-four articles were included in the narrative review. Qualitative research in the field of osteoporosis research can be summarized by 3 thematic areas: the meaning of osteoporosis for patients and the public, the lived experience of an osteoporosis diagnosis, and the programmatic approach to osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Conclusions. Qualitative studies provide clinically valuable insights in how osteoporosis is conceptualized and managed and programmatic aspects of osteoporosis treatment. The findings of this narrative review suggest the need for balance between presenting osteoporosis as a serious health condition and producing unwarranted anxiety and inactivity so as to ensure the best possible outcomes for individuals with osteoporosis.","PeriodicalId":45384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osteoporosis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative Insights from the Osteoporosis Research: A Narrative Review of the Literature\",\"authors\":\"A. Bombak, H. Hanson\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2016/7915041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose. Much of the research on osteoporosis has been generated quantitatively. However, the qualitative osteoporosis literature provides valuable information on patient and clinician experiences and perspectives, informing the design and implementation of health research and healthcare services. To identify knowledge gaps and inform the design of future qualitative research, a narrative review was conducted to consolidate and synthesize the existing insights available within the qualitative osteoporosis research. Methods. Search terms reflecting the domains of osteoporosis and qualitative research were entered into the Scopus database to generate a comprehensive survey of qualitative research in the area of osteoporosis. Articles were thematically analysed and the results are presented in the form of a narrative review. Results. Forty-four articles were included in the narrative review. Qualitative research in the field of osteoporosis research can be summarized by 3 thematic areas: the meaning of osteoporosis for patients and the public, the lived experience of an osteoporosis diagnosis, and the programmatic approach to osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Conclusions. Qualitative studies provide clinically valuable insights in how osteoporosis is conceptualized and managed and programmatic aspects of osteoporosis treatment. The findings of this narrative review suggest the need for balance between presenting osteoporosis as a serious health condition and producing unwarranted anxiety and inactivity so as to ensure the best possible outcomes for individuals with osteoporosis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Osteoporosis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Osteoporosis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7915041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osteoporosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7915041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

目的。许多关于骨质疏松症的研究都是定量的。然而,定性骨质疏松文献提供了关于患者和临床医生经验和观点的宝贵信息,为健康研究和医疗保健服务的设计和实施提供了信息。为了确定知识差距并为未来定性研究的设计提供信息,进行了一项叙述性回顾,以巩固和综合定性骨质疏松症研究中现有的见解。方法。将反映骨质疏松症和定性研究领域的搜索词输入Scopus数据库,以对骨质疏松症领域的定性研究进行全面调查。文章按主题进行分析,结果以叙述评论的形式呈现。结果。44篇文章被纳入叙述评论。骨质疏松研究领域的定性研究可以概括为3个主题领域:骨质疏松对患者和公众的意义,骨质疏松诊断的生活经验,以及骨质疏松预防和治疗的程序化方法。结论。定性研究为骨质疏松症的概念化和管理以及骨质疏松症治疗的程序化方面提供了临床有价值的见解。这篇叙述性综述的研究结果表明,需要在将骨质疏松症作为一种严重的健康状况和产生不必要的焦虑和不活动之间取得平衡,以确保骨质疏松症患者获得最好的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Qualitative Insights from the Osteoporosis Research: A Narrative Review of the Literature
Purpose. Much of the research on osteoporosis has been generated quantitatively. However, the qualitative osteoporosis literature provides valuable information on patient and clinician experiences and perspectives, informing the design and implementation of health research and healthcare services. To identify knowledge gaps and inform the design of future qualitative research, a narrative review was conducted to consolidate and synthesize the existing insights available within the qualitative osteoporosis research. Methods. Search terms reflecting the domains of osteoporosis and qualitative research were entered into the Scopus database to generate a comprehensive survey of qualitative research in the area of osteoporosis. Articles were thematically analysed and the results are presented in the form of a narrative review. Results. Forty-four articles were included in the narrative review. Qualitative research in the field of osteoporosis research can be summarized by 3 thematic areas: the meaning of osteoporosis for patients and the public, the lived experience of an osteoporosis diagnosis, and the programmatic approach to osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Conclusions. Qualitative studies provide clinically valuable insights in how osteoporosis is conceptualized and managed and programmatic aspects of osteoporosis treatment. The findings of this narrative review suggest the need for balance between presenting osteoporosis as a serious health condition and producing unwarranted anxiety and inactivity so as to ensure the best possible outcomes for individuals with osteoporosis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Changes in Testing and Treatment Methods in Osteoporosis Care The Effects of Switch Therapy in Osteoporosis Treatment after Romosozumab after Comparing with Prior Treatment Quantitative MR Analysis of Changes in the Radius Bone Marrow in Osteoporosis. Skeletal Manifestations, Bone Pain, and BMD Changes in Albanian Type 1 Gaucher Patients Treated with Taliglucerase Alfa Osteoporosis Screening Disparities among Ethnic and Racial Minorities: A Systematic Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1