Literature DB >> 22278848

The variability of patient preferences.

Joseph Bernstein1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Wide variation in procedure utilization suggests that surgical indications might not be rigorously defined. An alternative explanation is that surgical outcomes are valued differently across groups. When a patient, using the information provided by the surgeon, places high value on successful results or is indifferent to the costs of ineffective treatment, the treatment threshold is lower and more surgery will be chosen. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is there a high variation in patients' preferences and, therefore, high variation in treatment thresholds? Do people poorly estimate their own treatment thresholds?
METHODS: I presented a hypothetical scenario describing a diagnostically uncertain meniscus injury to 100 college students, asking them to rate the value of the four end points based on treatment choice (arthroscopy chosen/declined) and post hoc knowledge of the true diagnosis (tear present/absent). From those data, I calculated treatment thresholds. Subjects also estimated their treatment threshold directly.
RESULTS: The calculated treatment thresholds ranged from 4% to 88%. A discrepancy of at least 20% between the calculated and subject-estimated thresholds was present in 61 subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: There is great variance in the treatment threshold reported; additionally, many subjects poorly predicted their own calculated treatment thresholds. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Variability in patient preferences for outcome is an important, but perhaps underestimated, clinical parameter. Meaningful assessment of patient preferences when recommending treatment or creating clinical practice guidelines will lead to better shared decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22278848      PMCID: PMC3369078          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2239-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  28 in total

1.  Fear, anger, and risk.

Authors:  J S Lerner; D Keltner
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2001-07

2.  Medscape's response to the Institute of Medicine Report: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.

Authors:  M Leavitt
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2001-03-05

3.  Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Kristen K Bronner; Tamara Shawver Morgan; John E Wennberg
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 4.  Decision analysis.

Authors:  J Bernstein
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 5.  Predicting preferences: a neglected aspect of shared decision-making.

Authors:  Nick Sevdalis; Nigel Harvey
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  The threshold approach to clinical decision making.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-05-15       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Surgical compared with conservative treatment for acute nondisplaced or minimally displaced scaphoid fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Geert A Buijze; Job N Doornberg; John S Ham; David Ring; Mohit Bhandari; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  "You're perfect for the procedure! Why don't you want it?" Elderly arthritis patients' unwillingness to consider total joint arthroplasty surgery: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Pamela L Hudak; Jocalyn P Clark; Gillian A Hawker; Peter C Coyte; Nizar N Mahomed; Hans J Kreder; James G Wright
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Geographic variation in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders: 1990 to 2000.

Authors:  Chad Cook; Guilherme Cunha M Santos; Raquel Lima; Ricardo Pietrobon; Danny O Jacobs; William Richardson
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-01-02       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Racial disparities in receipt of hip and knee joint replacements are not explained by need: the Health and Retirement Study 1998-2004.

Authors:  Nicholas Steel; Allan Clark; Iain A Lang; Robert B Wallace; David Melzer
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 6.053

View more
  4 in total

1.  Not the Last Word: Choosing Wisely.

Authors:  Joseph Bernstein
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Not the Last Word: Unnecessary Surgery Can Never Be Done Well.

Authors:  Joseph Bernstein
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Applying evidence-based medicine principles to hip fracture management.

Authors:  Joseph Bernstein; Saam Morshed; David L Helfet; Mohit Bhandari; Jaimo Ahn
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2014-10-20

4.  Treatment for Rotator Cuff Tear Is Influenced by Demographics and Characteristics of the Area Where Patients Live.

Authors:  Cole G Chapman; Sarah Bauer Floyd; Charles A Thigpen; John M Tokish; Brian Chen; John M Brooks
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2018-08-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.