Accounts of health risk assessment survey administration in the Catch a Break Program: the social construction of osteoporosis risk identification and need for intervention

Catch a Break staff conducting the organizational work of delivering secondary fracture prevention screening conversations drew on cultural and organizational resources to determine eligibility of individuals. They encountered and navigated their way through interactional troubles as they requested participation, assessed trauma risk, and provided lifestyle information.

Purpose: We investigated delivery of a population-based type C fracture liaison service for non-hip fractures. The purpose of this study was to examine accounts of how osteoporosis health risk screening interactions were delivered.

Methods: A pre-determined sample of 5 organizational representatives (program staff) were interviewed by telephone. We analyzed the qualitative data through the lens of interpretive inquiry, informed by discourse analysis, to examine staff's "talk" about conducting the program risk screening conversations.

Results: A dominant finding emerging from CAB staff's accounts of program delivery was the conversational work required to include only those individuals deemed appropriate for the program while managing the survey interaction. Staff talked about specific examples of interactional troubles they experienced as barriers to the smooth and successful risk screening conversation. They drew on cultural and organizational resources as interpretive frameworks to make decisions about individuals and groups at risk and in need of further investigation. They drew on larger ideas about ageism and genderism, judging as inappropriate for participation the oldest old adults, men involved in high risk occupations, and adults aged 50 to 70. Staff also employed interactional resources useful in managing problems in the conversation during the request to participate, trauma risk assessment, and lifestyle/health information provision sequences of the risk screening call.

Conclusion: We uncovered areas in the screening interaction that were talked about by staff as problematic to achieving the program objective of identifying and enrolling individuals in the secondary fracture prevention program. By highlighting areas for improvement in program delivery, this study may help to reduce the interactional troubles staff negotiate as they deliver this type of program.