Back to all available

Exploring telemedicine needs and barriers in women with osteoporosis

evidence-based-medicine
nutrition
public-health
womens-health
healthcare-services

Abstract

Background: Telemedicine (TM) offers promising opportunities for chronic disease management, yet the specific needs, expectations, and barriers of patients with osteoporosis (OP) remain understudied.

Methods: This analytic cross-sectional study involved women with OP. A questionnaire assessed TM desire, expectations, topic preferences, and barriers. A Telemedicine Needs Score (TNS) was developed, and associations were analyzed using chi-square tests, non-parametric tests, and logistic regression.

Results: Among 197 women with OP, the most frequently reported challenges in the healthcare system were difficulty obtaining appointments and limited time with the doctor. More than half of the participants expressed willingness to use TM, and most believed TM could improve their quality of life. While drug information and side effects were the most expected topics, fracture prevention and risk factors were significantly more often selected by older adults (p = 0.040; OR = 2.30). Older women were more likely to face barriers, including lack of internet or devices (p < 0.001; OR = 3.69), inability to use devices (p = 0.003; OR = 2.61), and non-readiness/ low confidence (p < 0.001; OR = 0.31). The TNS was higher in older adults (p < 0.001; OR = 2.91). Older age (≥65 years) (OR = 0.36) and being widowed (OR = 0.54) independently predicted higher TM need.

Conclusions: Telemedicine in osteoporosis care is especially needed among older women, yet digital barriers limit its use. Addressing usability and providing education on drugs and fracture prevention may enhance adoption.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].