BACKGROUND: Advances in the surgical treatment of musculoskeletal conditions have resulted in an interest in better defining and understanding patients' expectations of these procedures, but the best ways to do this remain a topic of considerable debate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What validated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations of orthopaedic surgery have been used in published studies to date? (2) How were these expectation measures developed and validated? (3) What unvalidated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations have been used in published studies to date? METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the OVID Medline and EMBASE databases, in duplicate, to identify all studies that assessed patient expectations in orthopaedic surgery. Sixty-six studies were ultimately included in the present review. RESULTS: Seven validated expectation instruments were identified, all of which use patient-reported questionnaires. Five were specific to a particular procedure or affected anatomic location, whereas two were broadly applicable. Details of reliability and validity testing were available for all but one of these instruments. Forty additional unvalidated expectation assessment tools were identified. Thirteen were based on existing clinical outcome tools, and the others were study-specific, custom-developed tools. Only one of the unvalidated tools was used in more than one study. CONCLUSIONS: Several validated expectation instruments have been developed for use by patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. However, many tools have been reported without evidence of testing and validation. The wide range of untested instruments used in single studies substantially limits the interpretation and comparison of data concerning patient expectations.
BACKGROUND: Advances in the surgical treatment of musculoskeletal conditions have resulted in an interest in better defining and understanding patients' expectations of these procedures, but the best ways to do this remain a topic of considerable debate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What validated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations of orthopaedic surgery have been used in published studies to date? (2) How were these expectation measures developed and validated? (3) What unvalidated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations have been used in published studies to date? METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the OVID Medline and EMBASE databases, in duplicate, to identify all studies that assessed patient expectations in orthopaedic surgery. Sixty-six studies were ultimately included in the present review. RESULTS: Seven validated expectation instruments were identified, all of which use patient-reported questionnaires. Five were specific to a particular procedure or affected anatomic location, whereas two were broadly applicable. Details of reliability and validity testing were available for all but one of these instruments. Forty additional unvalidated expectation assessment tools were identified. Thirteen were based on existing clinical outcome tools, and the others were study-specific, custom-developed tools. Only one of the unvalidated tools was used in more than one study. CONCLUSIONS: Several validated expectation instruments have been developed for use by patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. However, many tools have been reported without evidence of testing and validation. The wide range of untested instruments used in single studies substantially limits the interpretation and comparison of data concerning patient expectations.
Authors: Carlos J Lavernia; Juan S Contreras; Javad Parvizi; Peter F Sharkey; Robert Barrack; Mark D Rossi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Marta Gonzalez Sáenz de Tejada; Antonio Escobar; Carmen Herrera; Lidia García; Felipe Aizpuru; Cristina Sarasqueta Journal: Value Health Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Lana Kang; Joseph Nguyen; Sohaib Z Hashmi; Steve K Lee; Andrew J Weiland; Carol A Mancuso Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Margaret A Pisani; Asha Albuquerque; Edward R Marcantonio; Richard N Jones; Ray Yun Gou; Tamara G Fong; Eva M Schmitt; Douglas Tommet; Ilean I Isaza Aizpurua; David C Alsop; Sharon K Inouye; Thomas G Travison Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Johannes E Plath; Tim Saier; Matthias J Feucht; Philipp Minzlaff; Gernot Seppel; Sepp Braun; Daniel Hatch; Andreas B Imhoff Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Matthias J Feucht; Matthias Cotic; Tim Saier; Philipp Minzlaff; Johannes E Plath; Andreas B Imhoff; Stefan Hinterwimmer Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Charlotte J Auer; Julia A Glombiewski; Bettina K Doering; Alexander Winkler; Johannes A C Laferton; Elizabeth Broadbent; Winfried Rief Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2016-02