Do Patient Preferences Influence Surgeon Recommendations for Treatment?
Ontology highlight
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).
SUBMITTER: Smits LJH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6510925 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer.We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients' baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients' interest in sex.Patients' initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, ??2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists' recommendations, ??2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists' recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, ??2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients' interest in sex (<15% of appointments).Patients' treatment decisions were based largely on urologists' recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients' personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.
| S-EPMC5587215 | biostudies-other
Project description:Importance:Guidelines assert that contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) should be discouraged in patients without an elevated risk for a second primary breast cancer. However, little is known about the impact of surgeons discouraging CPM on patient care satisfaction or decisions to seek treatment from another clinician. Objective:To examine the association between patient report of first-surgeon recommendation against CPM and the extent of discussion about it with 3 outcomes: patient satisfaction with surgery decisions, receipt of a second opinion, and receipt of surgery by a second surgeon. Design, Setting, and Participants:This population-based survey study was conducted in Georgia and California. We identified 3880 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013-2014 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery (71% response rate, n?=?2578). In this analysis conducted from February to May 2016, we included patients with unilateral breast cancer who considered CPM (n?=?1140). Patients were selected between July 2013 and September 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures:We examined report of surgeon recommendations, level of discussion about CPM, satisfaction with surgical decision making, receipt of second surgical opinion, and surgery from a second surgeon. Results:The mean (SD) age of patients included in this study was 56 (10.6) years. About one-quarter of patients (26.7%; n?=?304) reported that their first surgeon recommended against CPM and 30.1% (n?=?343) reported no substantial discussion about CPM. Dissatisfaction with surgery decision was uncommon (7.6%; n?=?130), controlling for clinical and demographic characteristics. One-fifth of patients (20.6%; n?=?304) had a second opinion about surgical options and 9.8% (n?=?158) had surgery performed by a second surgeon. Dissatisfaction was very low (3.9%; n?=?42) among patients who reported that their surgeon did not recommend against CPM but discussed it. Dissatisfaction was substantively higher for those whose surgeon recommended against CPM with no substantive discussion (14.5%; n?=?37). Women who received a recommendation against CPM were not more likely to seek a second opinion (17.1% among patients with recommendation against CPM vs 15.1% of others; P?=?.52) nor to receive surgery by a second surgeon (7.9% among patients with recommendation against CPM vs 8.3% of others; P?=?.88). Conclusions and Relevance:Most patients are satisfied with surgical decision making. First-surgeon recommendation against CPM does not appear to substantively increase patient dissatisfaction, use of second opinions, or loss of the patient to a second surgeon.
| S-EPMC5520628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to evaluate current surgical practice patterns, the factors that influence these patterns, and overall trends in the treatment of thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. METHODS:An online survey containing 14 questions was sent to all active members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Information on demographics and treatments was collected. Results were anonymously uploaded to an online spreadsheet. RESULTS:A total of 823 responses were recorded. Trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) using whole flexor carpi radialis was the most popular technique at 37.44%. In all, 26.38% of surgeons with fewer than 5 years of experience utilize trapeziectomy with suture suspension (bone anchor based or tendon based); 55.76% choose a particular procedure because of "Personal Clinical Experience" over "Current Evidence" and "Training." In addition, 24.17% of surgeons who have been practicing for longer than 5 years have changed procedures in the last 5 years. In the United States, 97.2% of hand surgeons prescribe either oxycodone or hydrocodone postoperatively compared with just 23.75% of international hand surgeons. CONCLUSIONS:The results show that trapeziectomy with LRTI remains the most popular treatment of choice. The use of trapeziectomy with suture suspension is on the rise, particularly in younger surgeons. International hand surgeons rely more on current evidence, utilize less postoperative therapy and opioid medications, and change procedures more often than US hand surgeons.
| S-EPMC6081787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe absence of a best practice treatment standard contributes to clinical variation in medicine. Often in the absence of evidence, a standard of care is developed and treatment protocols are implemented. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the standard of care for the treatment of nondisplaced scaphoid fractures is uniform among orthopedic surgeons.MethodsA survey of orthopedic surgeons actively practicing in the US or abroad was conducted to elicit preferred treatment strategies for nondisplaced scaphoid fractures. The surgeons were recruited at orthopedic conferences, clinical visits, and via email. The survey included demographic questions along with a short clinical vignette. The option for fracture management included surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. For those who chose nonsurgical treatment, type/duration of immobilization was recorded. Cost analysis was performed to estimate direct and indirect costs of various treatment options.ResultsA total of 494 orthopedic surgeons completed the survey. The preference for surgical treatment was preferred in 13% of respondents. Hand/upper extremity specialists were significantly more likely to operate compared with generalists (p = 0.0002). Surgeons younger than forty-five were nearly twice as likely to choose surgery (p = 0.01). There was no clear consensus on duration of immobilization as 30% of surgeons chose 6 weeks, 33% selected 8 weeks, and 27% opted for 12 weeks. Total cost of surgery was 49% greater than that of nonoperative treatment. With each additional week of immobilization for nonoperative treatment, the total costs of surgical treatment near that of nonoperative treatment.ConclusionThere exist clear trends in how specific demographic groups choose to treat the nondisplaced scaphoid fracture. Whether these trends are the result of generational gaps or additional subspecialty training remains difficult to determine, but there is need to pursue a more consistent approach that benefits the patients and the health care system as a whole.
| S-EPMC4939409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgeons face the unique challenge of being responsible for both clinical encounters and surgical outcomes. We aim to explore how patient evaluations of surgeons may be influenced by patient and provider factors.MethodsPatient responses from the 2016 CGCAHPS survey at a single institution were identified. A Poisson regression model was used to identify patient/provider factors associated with ratings.Results11,007 surveys of 134 surgeons were included. After adjustment, higher overall surgeon ratings were associated with older patient age (p < 0.001) and male patient gender (p = 0.001). Lower ratings were associated with higher patient education (p < 0.001) and lower patient self-health ratings (p < 0.001). Although female surgeons tended to have higher communication scores, overall scores did not differ based on any surgeon factors.ConclusionsPatient satisfaction scores of surgeons are more closely correlated with patient variables than surgeon factors. This may have implications for physician performance evaluation in value-based care models.
| S-EPMC7680394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceStenosing tenosynovitis (trigger finger) affects approximately 2% of the population. Given the prevalence of trigger finger and rising health care costs, adherence to the cost-effective and evidence-based treatment algorithm will permit better outcomes and allocation of resources.ObjectivesTo examine treatment patterns for trigger finger and to determine surgeon-level and patient-level factors that influence adherence to evidence-based treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective population-based cohort study examined deidentified claims for treatment of trigger finger from a national insurance provider using the Clinformatics Data Mart database. Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and treated from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2016 (excluding a washout period from July 1, 2008, until June 30, 2010), with a new diagnosis of single-digit trigger finger. Data were analyzed from December 21, 2018, through April 28, 2019.ExposuresCost-effective and evidence-based research published in July 2009 for the treatment of trigger finger.Main outcomes and measuresAfter excluding the 1-year washout period on either side of July 1, 2009, adherence to the recommended treatment algorithm of 2 corticosteroid injections before surgical release of trigger finger was compared with practice before publication of research supporting this cost-effective and evidence-based approach.ResultsIn this analysis of 83?667 patients with trigger finger, 52?698 (63.0%) were women, and 20?045 (24.0%) had type 1 or 2 diabetes. Mean (SD) age was 61 (13) years. From 2002 to 2016, an overall increasing trend in adherence to the cost-effective and evidence-based approach to treatment was noted, with no significant increase in adherence in the postpublication era (67.5% vs 73.3%; P?=?.27). Substantial variation in adherence was observed at the surgeon level (intraclass correlation, 33%). Plastic surgeons had no change in adherence over time compared with orthopedic surgeons (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; P?=?.90), whereas general surgeons had increased adherence (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; P?<?.001). Higher-volume surgeons were also more adherent to these evidence-based recommendations (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.53-1.65; P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found substantial surgeon-level variation in adherence to evidence-based treatment of trigger finger. Surgeon specialty and volume were associated with differences in adherence. Efforts to understand surgeon barriers to implementation, regardless of physician specialty, appear to be necessary, and better implementation strategies may permit increased uptake of evidence-based treatment of trigger finger.
| S-EPMC6804023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore preferences for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). We hypothesized that OCD patients will select a combination of medication and psychotherapy as their most preferred choice overall.The authors designed a treatment-preference survey using 2 health economics methods, forced-choice and contingent-ranking methods, to elicit preferences for OCD treatment available in mainstream care (serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SRIs], exposure and response prevention [EX/RP], and their combination) and for novel treatments under development at OCD research clinics. This survey was given by telephone to 89 individuals with OCD who called the OCD research clinic at the New York State Psychiatric Institute between July 2008 and January 2009. Diagnosis of OCD was based on a telephone screening evaluation adapted from the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders.Most participants chose combination treatment (43%) or EX/RP (42%) over SRI medication (16%). Participants ranked investigational psychotherapy as their most-preferred novel treatment (endorsed by 48% of participants) and deep brain stimulation as their least-preferred novel treatment (endorsed by 77% of participants). Qualitative data suggest that prior treatment experience, concerns about medications, and logistical and practical concerns about treatment regimens affect preferences.Patients with OCD have identifiable treatment preferences. In this sample of convenience, most preferred either combination treatment or psychotherapy. Future studies should investigate prospectively what modifies these preferences and how these preferences affect treatment outcome.
| S-EPMC3109740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Markers that predict treatment effect have the potential to improve patient outcomes. For example, the OncotypeDX® RecurrenceScore® has some ability to predict the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy over and above hormone therapy for the treatment of estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, facilitating the provision of chemotherapy to women most likely to benefit from it. Given that the score was originally developed for predicting outcome given hormone therapy alone, it is of interest to develop alternative combinations of the genes comprising the score that are optimized for treatment selection. However, most methodology for combining markers is useful when predicting outcome under a single treatment. We propose a method for combining markers for treatment selection which requires modeling the treatment effect as a function of markers. Multiple models of treatment effect are fit iteratively by upweighting or "boosting" subjects potentially misclassified according to treatment benefit at the previous stage. The boosting approach is compared to existing methods in a simulation study based on the change in expected outcome under marker-based treatment. The approach improves upon methods in some settings and has comparable performance in others. Our simulation study also provides insights as to the relative merits of the existing methods. Application of the boosting approach to the breast cancer data, using scaled versions of the original markers, produces marker combinations that may have improved performance for treatment selection.
| S-EPMC4248022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Patients with severe emphysema have limited treatment options. Little is known about patients' willingness to accept risks for new treatments that offer meaningful benefits. Methods: We determined treatment preferences of patients with severe emphysema using a web-based discrete-choice experiment survey. Respondents answered 9 questions that offered choices between 2 hypothetical interventional treatments or continuing current medical management. Variations in 5 attributes defined the 2 interventional treatments: improvement in ability to breathe and carry out day-to-day activities, frequency of hospitalized exacerbations, treatment type, risk of pneumothorax within 30 days of procedure, and risk of death within 3 months. Respondents were recruited through the COPD Foundation's COPD Patient-Powered Research Network and had a self-reported emphysema diagnosis and 2+ score on the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. The relative importance of the attributes and the percentage of respondents who would select different treatment options was modeled using random-parameters logit. Results: Among 294 respondents, 51% always chose an interventional treatment option, while 19% always selected continued medical management. The most important change on average was moving from continued medical management (with no improvement in breathlessness) to an interventional treatment with improvement in breathlessness. The model predicted 71% of respondents would select a treatment option similar to removable endobronchial valve implants, 6% would select lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), and 23% continued medical management. Conclusion: Patients with severe emphysema perceive that a procedure with risks and benefits similar to the Zephyr® endobronchial valve implants is desirable over continued medical management or LVRS.
| S-EPMC6373586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are not clear evidence to date evaluating patients' and caregivers' preferences for the recombinant-human growth hormone (r-hGH) injection in children in Japan. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluated the factors driving preferences for daily r-hGH injections among Japanese children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) or their caregivers and to determine the relative importance of treatment delivery factors.MethodsThis study was performed among Japanese children with GHD or their caregivers who visited a specialized clinic in Japan as part of their routine care. The participants were asked to complete a web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire.ResultsChoice-based conjoint analysis was used to evaluate the relative importance of the attributes of the choice predictors and determine utility scores for each attribute. Of the 47 respondents who participated in this study, 41 were caregivers who responded on behalf of the patients, the remaining six were patients who completed the DCE themselves. The injection schedule was found to be the most important factor for both patients and caregivers; a once-weekly injection schedule was preferred over a daily injection schedule. Storage and preparation was deemed more important to patients than it was to caregivers, with patients preferring storage at room temperature even if it required additional mixing (reconstitution). Both patients and caregivers showed a clear preference for devices that offered a dose-setting memory.ConclusionsA less frequent injection schedule may enhance adherence to r-hGH treatment and expected improve quality of life for GHD patients over the long term.
| S-EPMC8596999 | biostudies-literature