Dataset Information

Do Patient Preferences Influence Surgeon Recommendations for Treatment?

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

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresWe 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.ResultsThe 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 relevanceMost 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.

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.

Project description:Previous studies have documented that racial minorities and women receive poorer pain care than their demographic counterparts. Providers contribute to these disparities when their pain-related decision-making systematically varies across patient groups. Less is known about racial and gender disparities in children with pain or the extent to which providers contribute to these disparities. In a sample of 129 medical students (henceforth referred to as "providers"), Virtual Human methodology and a pain-related version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) were used to examine the effects of patient race/gender on providers' pain assessment/treatment decisions for pediatric chronic abdominal pain, as well as the moderating role of provider implicit pain-related race/gender attitudes. Findings indicated that providers rated Black patients as more distressed (mean difference [MD] = 2.33, P < .01, standard error [SE] = .71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .92, 3.73) and as experiencing more pain-related interference (MD = 3.14, P < .01, SE = .76, 95% CI = 1.63, 4.64) compared to White patients. Providers were more likely to recommend opioids for Black patients than White patients (MD = 2.41, P < .01, SE = .58, 95% CI = 1.05, 3.76). Female patients were perceived to be more distressed by their pain (MD = 2.14, P < .01, SE = .79, 95% CI = .58, 3.70) than male patients, however there were no gender differences in treatment recommendations. IAT results indicated that providers held implicit attitudes that Black Americans (M = .19, standard deviation [SD] = .29) and males (M = .38, SD = .29) were more pain-tolerant than their demographic counterparts; however, these implicit attitudes did not significantly moderate their pain assessment/treatment decisions. Future studies are needed to elucidate specific paths through which the pain experience and care of children differ across racial and gender groups. PERSPECTIVE: Providers' pain assessment (ie, pain distress/pain interference) and treatment (ie, opioids) of pediatric pain differs across patient race and to a lesser extent, patient gender. This study represents a critical step in research on pain-related disparities in pediatric pain.

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.