ArticleBJA open2026
Exploring clinician and patient perspectives on choice of general anaesthetic. A report of two U.S. surveys: an anesthesia clinician Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group survey and a patient Amazon Mechanical Turk survey.
Article in BJA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inhalation anaesthesia or propofol-based TIVA are the two primary options for administering general anaesthesia. Shared decision-making between clinicians and patients is critical. This study explores the perspectives of both anesthesia clinicians and patients on general anaesthesia techniques, aiming to identify gaps in communication and decision-making. Methods: Two surveys were conducted in December 2020: an 18-item clinician survey disseminated through the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group to clinicians who administer general anesthesia and a 33-item patient survey distributed via Amazon Mechanical Turk to individuals who had undergone surgery using general anaesthesia. The clinician survey focused on preferences regarding use of general anaesthesia techniques, discussion practices, and perceived barriers to TIVA use. The patient survey assessed preoperative discussions and preferences for anaesthetic techniques. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 1123 anesthesia clinician respondents [comprised mostly of anaesthesiology attendings (47.8%) or Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs, 34.6%)], when asked if they or a family member required general anaesthesia; 40% preferred TIVA, 13% preferred inhalation anesthesia and 33% indicated no preference. Nearly 80% of clinicians did not routinely discuss general anaesthetic technique options with patients. Among the 509 eligible patients (mean age: 38.1 yr), 65% reported that their anaesthesia team discussed general anaesthesia options, and 63% were offered a choice. Both anesthesia clinicians and patients identified intraoperative awareness risk and recovery quality as important factors influencing preferences. Conclusions: This study highlights discrepancies between patient perceptions of shared decision-making and anesthesia clinicians' reported practices for general anesthesia techniques in US hospitals. Further comparative studies are needed to address these communication gaps and support evidence-based shared decision-making in anaesthetic care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.