Do Patient Preferences Influence Surgeon Recommendations for Treatment? | ||
| The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 7، شماره 2، خرداد و تیر 2019، صفحه 118-135 اصل مقاله (2.47 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2018.32214.1853 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Lisanne J. H. Smits1؛ Suzanne C. Wilkens1؛ David Ring2؛ Thierry G. Guitton3؛ Neal C. Chen* 1 | ||
| 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA | ||
| 2Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA | ||
| 3Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Background: When the best treatment option is uncertain, a patient’s preference based on personal values should be the source of most variation in diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Unexplained surgeon-to-surgeon variation in treatment for hand and upper extremity conditions suggests that surgeon preferences have more influence than patient preferences. Methods: A total of 184 surgeons reviewed 18 fictional scenarios of upper extremity conditions for which operative treatment is discretionary and preference sensitive, and recommended either operative or non-operative treatment. To test the influence of six specific patient preferences the preference was randomly assigned to each scenario in an affirmative or negative manner. Surgeon characteristics were collected for each participant. Results: Of the six preferences studied, four influenced surgeon recommendations. Surgeons were more likely to recommend non-operative treatment when patients; preferred the least expensive treatment (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 – 0.94; P=0.005), preferred non-operative treatment (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 – 0.95; P=0.006), were not concerned about aesthetics (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.0 – 1.3; P=0.046), and when patients only preferred operative treatment if there is consensus among surgeons that operative treatment is a useful option (adjusted OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68 – 0.89; P<0.001). Conclusion: Patient preferences were found to have a measurable influence on surgeon treatment recommendations though not as much as we expected-and surgeons on average interpreted surgery as more aesthetic. This emphasizes the importance of strategies to help patients reflect on their values and ensure their preferences are consistent with those values (e.g. use of decision-aids). Level of evidence: III | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Conservative treatment؛ Decision making؛ Patient preference؛ Surgery | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1. Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012; 86(1):9-18. 2. Dardas AZ, Stockburger C, Boone S, An T, Calfee RP. Preferences for shared decision making in older adult patients with orthopedic hand conditions. J Hand Surg Am. 2016; 41(10):978-87. 3. Hageman MG, Reddy R, Makarawung DJ, Briet JP, van Dijk CN, Ring D. Do upper extremity trauma patients have different preferences for shared decisionmaking than patients with nontraumatic conditions? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(11):3542-8. 4. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 49(5):651-61. 5. Shay A, Lafata J. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015; 35(1):114-31. 6. Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, De Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CP, de Jong CA. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008; 77(4):219-26. 7. Brody DS. The patient’s role in clinical decisionmaking. Ann Intern Med. 1980; 93(5):718-22. 8. Janssen SJ, Molleman J, Guitton TG, Ring D. What middle phalanx base fracture characteristics are most reliable and useful for surgical decision-making? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(12):3943-50. 9. Guitton TG, Ring D. Interobserver reliability of radial head fracture classification: two-dimensional compared with three-dimensional CT. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(21):2015-21. 10. Doornberg JN, Guitton TG, Ring D. Diagnosis of elbow fracture patterns on radiographs: Interobserver reliability and diagnostic accuracy elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(4):1373-8. 11. Neuhaus V, Bot AG, Guitton TG, Ring DC, Science of Variation Group, Abdel-Ghany MI, et al. Scapula fractures: interobserver reliability of classification and treatment. J Orthop Trauma. 2014; 28(3):124-9. 12. Hageman MG, Becker SJ, Bot AG, Guitton T, Ring D, Science of Variation Group. Variation in recommendation for surgical treatment for compressive neuropathy. J Hand Surg Am. 2013; 38(5):856-62. 13. Hageman MG, Jayakumar P, King JD, Guitton TG, Doornberg JN, Ring D. The factors influencing the decision making of operative treatment for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24(1):e21-6. 14. Ozkan S, Mellema JJ, Ring D, Chen NC. Interobserver variability of radiographic assessment using a mobile messaging application as a teleconsultation tool. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017; 5(5):308-14. 15. van Wulfften Palthe OD, Neuhaus V, Janssen SJ, Guitton TG, Ring D. Among musculoskeletal surgeons, job dissatisfaction is associated with burnout. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474(8):1857-63. 16. Dy CJ, Lyman S, Boutin-Foster C, Felix K, Kang Y, Parks ML. Do patient race and sex change surgeon recommendations for TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 473(2):410-7. 17. Chhabra KR, Sacks GD, Dimick JB. Surgical decision making challenging dogma and incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2017; 317(4):357-8. 18. Hajjaj FM, Salek MS, Basra MK, Finlay AY. Non-clinical influences on clinical decision-making: a major challenge to evidence-based practice. J R Soc Med. 2010; 103(5):178-87. 19. Bernheim SM, Ross JS, Krumholz HM, Bradley EH. Influence of patients ’ socioeconomic status on clinical management decisions : a qualitative study. Ann Fam Med. 2008; 6(1):53-9. 20. McKinlay JB, Potter DA, Feldman HA. Non-medical influences on medical decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 1996; 42(5):769-76. 21. Birkmeyer JD, Reames BN, McCulloch P, Carr AJ, Campbell WB, Wennberg JE. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet. 2013; 382(9898):1121-9. 22. Janssen SJ, Teunis T, Guitton TG, Ring D; Science of Variation Group. Do surgeons treat their patients like they would treat themselves? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(11):3564-72. 23. Teunis T, Janssen SJ, Guitton TG, Vranceanu AM, Goos B, Ring D. Surgeon personality is associated with recommendation for operative treatment. Hand. 2015; 10(4):779-84. 24. Paulus MC, Braunstein J, Merenstein D, Neufeld S, Narvaez M, Friedland R, et al. Variability in orthopedic surgeon treatment preferences for nondisplaced scaphoid fractures: a cross-sectional survey. J Orthop. 2016; 13(4):337-42. 25. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col N, Bennett C, Barry M, Eden K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 1(10):CD001431. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 498 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 389 |
||