Lisanne J H Smits1,2,3,4, Suzanne C Wilkens1,2,3,4, David Ring1,2,3,4, Thierry G Guitton1,2,3,4, Neal C Chen1,2,3,4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Research performed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
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).
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).
Entities:
Keywords:
Conservative treatment; Decision making; Patient preference; Surgery
Authors: Valentin Neuhaus; Arjan G J Bot; Thierry G Guitton; David C Ring; Mahmoud I Abdel-Ghany; Jeffrey Abrams; Joshua M Abzug; Lars E Adolfsson; George W Balfour; H Brent Bamberger; Antonio Barquet; Michael Baskies; W Arnold Batson; Taizoon Baxamusa; Grant J Bayne; Thierry Begue; Michael Behrman; Daphne Beingessner; Jan Biert; Julius Bishop; Mateus Borges Oliveira Alves; Martin Boyer; Drago Brilej; Peter R G Brink; Lance M Brunton; Richard Buckley; Juan Carlos Cagnone; Ryan P Calfee; Luiz Augusto B Campinhos; Charles Cassidy; Louis Catalano; Karel Chivers; Pradeep Choudhari; Matej Cimerman; Joseph M Conflitti; Ralph M Costanzo; Brett D Crist; Brian J Cross; Phani Dantuluri; Michael Darowish; Ramon de Bedout; Thomas DeCoster; David G Dennison; Peter H DeNoble; Gregory DeSilva; Thomas Dienstknecht; Scott F Duncan; Xavier A Duralde; Holger Durchholz; Kenneth Egol; Carl Ekholm; Nelson Elias; John M Erickson; J Daniel Espinosa Esparza; C H Fernandes; Thomas J Fischer; Martin Fischmeister; E Forigua Jaime; Charles L Getz; Richard S Gilbert; Vincenzo Giordano; David L Glaser; Taco Gosens; Michael W Grafe; Jose Eduardo Grandi Ribeiro Filho; Robert R L Gray; Lawrence V Gulotta; Nigel William Gummerson; Eric Mark Hammerberg; Edward Harvey; R Haverlag; Patrick D G Henry; Jonathan L Hobby; Eric P Hofmeister; Thomas Hughes; John Itamura; Peter Jebson; Richard Jenkinson; Kyle Jeray; Christopher M Jones; Jedediah Jones; Axel Jubel; Scott G Kaar; K Kabir; F Thomas D Kaplan; Stephen A Kennedy; Michael W Kessler; Hervey L Kimball; Peter Kloen; Cyrus Klostermann; Georges Kohut; G A Kraan; Anze Kristan; Mark I Loebenberg; Kevin J Malone; L Marsh; Paul A Martineau; John McAuliffe; Iain McGraw; Samir Mehta; Milind Merchant; Charles Metzger; S A Meylaerts; Anna N Miller; Jennifer Moriatis Wolf; Joel Murachovsky; Anand Murthi; Michael Nancollas; Betsy M Nolan; Timothy Omara; Reza Omid; Jose A Ortiz; Joachim P Overbeck; Alberto Pérez Castillo; Rodrigo Pesantez; Daniel Polatsch; G Porcellini; Michael Prayson; M Quell; Matthew M Ragsdell; James G Reid; J M Reuver; Marc J Richard; Martin Richardson; Marco Rizzo; Sergio Rowinski; Jorge Rubio; Carlos G Sánchez Guerrero; Wojciech Satora; Peter Schandelmaier; Johan H Scheer; Andrew Schmidt; Todd A Schubkegel; Leah M Schulte; Evan D Schumer; Benjamin W Sears; Adam B Shafritz; Nicholas L Shortt; Todd Siff; Dario Mejia Silva; Raymond Malcolm Smith; Sander Spruijt; Jason A Stein; Emilija Stojkovska Pemovska; Philipp N Streubel; Carrie Swigart; Marc Swiontkowski; George Thomas; Eric T Tolo; Matthias Turina; Minos Tyllianakis; Michel P J van den Bekerom; Huub van der Heide; M A J van de Sande; P V van Eerten; Diederik O F Verbeek; David Victoria Hoffmann; A J H Vochteloo; Robert Wagenmakers; Christopher J Wall; Richard Wallensten; Daniel C Wascher; Lawrence Weiss; J Michael Wiater; Brian P D Wills; Jeffrey Wint; Thomas Wright; Jason P Young; Charalampos Zalavras; Robert D Zura; Karol Zyto Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Bradley N Reames; Peter McCulloch; Andrew J Carr; W Bruce Campbell; John E Wennberg Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-09-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E A G Joosten; L DeFuentes-Merillas; G H de Weert; T Sensky; C P F van der Staak; C A J de Jong Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2008-04-16 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Michiel G H Hageman; Stephanie J E Becker; Arjan G J Bot; Thierry Guitton; David Ring Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 2.230