Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30762685›Full record

Observational studyClinical orthopaedics and related research2019

Do Patients Unconsciously Associate Suggestions for More-invasive Treatment with Better Care?

Joost T P Kortlever, Janna S E Ottenhoff, Thi T H Tran, David Ring, Gregg A Vagner, Matt D Driscoll

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Difficult life events affect lower extremity illness.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022
    Article
  2. Editorial: The Sacredness of Surgery.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019
    Article
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

6 authors.

Joost T P KortleverJ. T. P. Kortlever, J. S. E. Ottenhoff, T. T. H. Tran, D. Ring, G. A. Vagner, M. D. Driscoll, Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School - The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Janna S E Ottenhoff
Thi T H Tran
David Ring
Gregg A Vagner
Matt D Driscoll

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt seems common for patients to conceive of care in physical terms, such as medications, injections, and procedures rather than advice and support. Clinicians often encounter patients who seem to prefer more testing or invasive treatments than expertise supports. We wanted to determine whether patients unconsciously associate suggestions for invasive treatments with better care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do patients have (A) an implicit preference and (B) an expressed preference for a physical intervention (such as a pill, an injection, or surgery) over supportive care (such as reassurance and education)? (2) What factors are independently associated with both an implicit and an expressed preference for a physical intervention over supportive care? (3) Is there a relationship between a patient's implicit preference toward or away from a physical intervention and his/her expressed preference on that subject?

methodsIn this study, we approached 129 new patients in a large urban area visiting one of 13 participating surgeons divided among six upper and lower extremity specialist offices. After excluding four patients based on our exclusion criteria, 125 patients (97%) completed a survey of demographics and their expressed preference about receiving either physical treatment or support. Treatment was defined as any surgery, procedure, injection, or medication; support was defined as reassurance, conversation, and education, but no physical treatment. Patients then completed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to evaluate implicit preferences toward treatment or support. Although other IATs have been validated in numerous studies, the IAT used in this study was specifically made for this study. Scores (D scores) range from -2 to 2, where 0 indicates no implicit preference, positive scores indicate a preference toward receiving a physical treatment is good care, and negative scores indicate a preference toward receiving supportive care is good care. According to the original IAT, break points for a slight (± 0.15 to 0.35), moderate (± 0.35 to 0.65), and strong preference (± 0.65 to 2) were selected conservatively according to psychological conventions for effect size. Patients' mean age was 50 ± 15 years (range, 18-79 years) and 56 (45%) were men. The patients had a broad spectrum of upper and lower extremity musculoskeletal conditions, ranging from trigger finger to patellofemoral syndrome.

resultsWe found a slight implicit association of good care with support (D = -0.17 ± 0.62; range, -2 to 1.2) and an expressed preference for physical treatment (mean score = 0.63 ± 2.0; range, -3 to 3). Patients who received both physical and supportive treatment had greater implicit preference for good care, meaning supportive care, than patients receiving physical care alone (β = -0.42; 95% CI, -0.73 to -0.11; p = 0.008; semipartial R = 0.04; adjusted R full model = 0.13). Gender was independently associated with a greater expressed preference for physical treatment, with men expressing this preference more than women (β = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.31-1.7; p = 0.005; semipartial R = 0.06; adjusted R full model = 0.08); receiving supportive treatment was independently associated with more expressed preference for support (β = -0.98; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.23; p = 0.011; semipartial R = 0.05). An expressed preference for treatment was not associated with implicit preference (β = 0.01; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.06; p = 0.721).

conclusionsAlthough surgeons may sometimes feel pressured toward physical treatments, based on our results and cutoff values, the average patient with upper or lower extremity symptoms has a slight implicit preference for supportive treatment and would likely be receptive. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeOrthopedic ProceduresPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient PreferenceQuality Indicators, Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30762685
PMCPMC6382206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.