Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25176023›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2014

Patient, surgeon, and healthcare purchaser views on the use of decision and communication aids in orthopaedic surgery: a mixed methods study.

Kevin J Bozic, Kate Eresian Chenok, Jennifer Schindel, Vanessa Chan, James I Huddleston, Clarence Braddock, Jeffrey Belkora

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Artificial intelligence in orthopaedics: Enhanced examinations, ambient intelligence and the future of clinical practice.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin J BozicDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, 500 Parnassus, MU 320W, San Francisco, CA 94143-0728, USA. kevin.bozic@ucsf.edu.
Kate Eresian Chenok
Jennifer Schindel
Vanessa Chan
James I Huddleston
Clarence Braddock
Jeffrey Belkora
Lee University · USPacific Business Group on Health · USStanford University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite evidence that decision and communication aids are effective for enhancing the quality of preference-sensitive decisions, their adoption in the field of orthopaedic surgery has been limited. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the perceived value of decision and communication aids among different healthcare stakeholders.

methodsPatients with hip or knee arthritis, orthopaedic surgeons who perform hip and knee replacement procedures, and a group of large, self-insured employers (healthcare purchasers) were surveyed regarding their views on the value of decision and communication aids in orthopaedics. Patients with hip or knee arthritis who participated in a randomized controlled trial involving decision and communication aids were asked to complete an online survey about what was most and least beneficial about each of the tools they used, the ideal mode of administration of these tools and services, and their interest in receiving comparable materials and services in the future. A subset of these patients were invited to participate in a telephone interview, where there were asked to rank and attribute a monetary value to the interventions. These interviews were analyzed using a qualitative and mixed methods analysis software. Members of the American Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) were surveyed on their perceptions and usage of decision and communication aids in orthopaedic practice. Healthcare purchasers were interviewed about their perspectives on patient-oriented decision support.

resultsAll stakeholders saw value in decision and communication aids, with the major barrier to implementation being cost. Both patients and surgeons would be willing to bear at least part of the cost of implementing these tools, while employers felt health plans should be responsible for shouldering the costs.

conclusionsDecision and communication aids can be effective tools for incorporating patients preferences and values into preference-sensitive decisions in orthopaedics. Future efforts should be aimed at assessing strategies for efficient implementation of these tools into widespread orthopaedic practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthDecision Support TechniquesOrthopedicsSurgeonsHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25176023
PMCPMC4162971
OpenAlexW2168124851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.