STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare preferences for laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) over abdominal hysterectomy (AH) by gynecologists who perform LH (group 1), their colleagues (group 2), and gynecologists employed by a hospital that does not provide LH (group 3), and to estimate boundary values of patient characteristics that influence preference for mode of hysterectomy. Differences in referral tendencies between groups 2 and 3 are compared. DESIGN: Group comparison study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Nationwide conjoint preference study in groups 1, 2, and 3. INTERVENTION: Web-based choice-based conjoint analysis questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In general, group 1 preferred LH significantly more often (86.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.6-91.0) than did group 2 (70.9%; 95% CI, 63.4-78.4). Group 3 preferred LH significantly less frequently (50.3%; 95% CI, 35.7-64.9). Increases in body mass index, estimated uterus size, and number of previous abdominal surgeries caused a significant drop in shares of preferences in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a gynecologist who performs LH positively influences the referral behavior of colleagues. The effect of an increased body mass index seems to be a restrictive parameter for choosing LH according to both referring gynecologists and those who perform LH. Level of experience does not influence preference of laparoscopists. The observed discrepancy between reported and simulated referral behavior in group 3 demonstrates that practical impediments significantly decrease referral tendencies, consequently hampering implementation of this minimally invasive approach.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare preferences for laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) over abdominal hysterectomy (AH) by gynecologists who perform LH (group 1), their colleagues (group 2), and gynecologists employed by a hospital that does not provide LH (group 3), and to estimate boundary values of patient characteristics that influence preference for mode of hysterectomy. Differences in referral tendencies between groups 2 and 3 are compared. DESIGN: Group comparison study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Nationwide conjoint preference study in groups 1, 2, and 3. INTERVENTION: Web-based choice-based conjoint analysis questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In general, group 1 preferred LH significantly more often (86.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.6-91.0) than did group 2 (70.9%; 95% CI, 63.4-78.4). Group 3 preferred LH significantly less frequently (50.3%; 95% CI, 35.7-64.9). Increases in body mass index, estimated uterus size, and number of previous abdominal surgeries caused a significant drop in shares of preferences in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a gynecologist who performs LH positively influences the referral behavior of colleagues. The effect of an increased body mass index seems to be a restrictive parameter for choosing LH according to both referring gynecologists and those who perform LH. Level of experience does not influence preference of laparoscopists. The observed discrepancy between reported and simulated referral behavior in group 3 demonstrates that practical impediments significantly decrease referral tendencies, consequently hampering implementation of this minimally invasive approach.
Authors: Mathijs D Blikkendaal; Evelyn M Schepers; Erik W van Zwet; Andries R H Twijnstra; Frank Willem Jansen Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Annefleur M de Bruijn; Jolijn Huisman; Wouter J K Hehenkamp; Paul N M Lohle; Jim A Reekers; Anne Timmermans; Andries R H Twijnstra Journal: CVIR Endovasc Date: 2019-06-03