What outcomes do patients value after orthopaedic trauma: A best-worst scaling choice experiment

被引:1
|
作者
Parry, Joshua A. [1 ]
Patterson, Joseph T. [2 ]
O'Hara, Nathan N. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Colorado, Sch Med, Denver Hlth Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Denver, CO USA
[2] Univ Southern Calif, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Keck Sch Med, Los Angeles, CA USA
[3] Univ Maryland, Sch Med, Dept Orthopaed, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
Best-Worst scaling; Clinical outcomes; Patient preference; Patient-reported outcome measures; Complications; Adverse events; Orthopaedic trauma; EQ-5D; PELVIC RING INJURIES; NONOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH-CARE; SURGERY; EQ-5D; FRACTURES; FIXATION; RECOVERY;
D O I
10.1016/j.injury.2024.111639
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Introduction: Patient-centered treatment and research should focus on the outcomes that matter to patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the outcome preferences of patients after musculoskeletal trauma. The secondary aim was to identify discrepancies between outcome preferences of surgeons and patients. Methods: A Best-worst scaling choice experiment survey was administered to patients with operative lower extremity injuries and orthopaedic surgeons who take trauma call. Participants completed 13 choice sets of 3 randomly-ordered outcomes, including: a full recovery (back to normal) without any problems; a problem that requires additional surgery or hospital stay versus medication or treatment in clinic/emergency department; minimal to moderate versus severe pain for 6 weeks; need for crutches/walker versus wheelchair for 6-12 weeks; being unable to work for 6-12 weeks; requiring 2-4 weeks in a facility; a perfect versus poor or worst-possible EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) score at 1 year; and death. Within each set, participants ranked their "mostpreferred" to "least-preferred" outcomes. Responses were aggregated to calculate the relative importance, or marginal utility, of each outcome stratified by respondent type. Results: Fifty-five patients and 65 surgeons participated. The most preferred outcome for patients and surgeons was a full recovery (back to normal) without any problems, followed by minimal to moderate pain for 6 weeks and a perfect EQ-5D score. The least preferred outcomes were death and the worst EQ-5D score, which had similar marginal utility, followed by a poor EQ-5D score and a problem that needs another surgery or stay at a hospital, which also had similar marginal utility. Surgeons, in comparison to patients, assigned a higher marginal utility to perfect EQ-5D scores at one year (3.55 vs. 2.03; p < 0.0001) and a 2-4 week stay in a facility (0.52 vs. -0.21; p = 0.001), and a lower marginal utility to severe pain for 6 weeks (-0.58 vs. -0.08; p = 0.04) and a poor EQ-5D score (-1.88 vs. -1.03; p = 0.02). Conclusions: A full recovery (back to normal) without any problems was the most-preferred outcome for both patients and surgeons. Patient-centered care and research should focus on both patients' return to baseline and the avoidance of complications. Level of evidence: N/A
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Is Best-Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments
    Krucien, Nicolas
    Watson, Verity
    Ryan, Mandy
    HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2017, 26 (12) : E1 - E16
  • [32] Building Data and Information Capacity in Environmental Public Health: A Best-Worst Scaling Experiment
    Wallar, Lauren E.
    Sargeant, Jan M.
    McEwen, Scott A.
    Mercer, Nicola J.
    Papadopoulos, Andrew
    JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICE, 2018, 24 (03): : E1 - E8
  • [33] MARKET-CHANNEL CHOICES OF INDONESIAN POTATO FARMERS: A BEST-WORST SCALING EXPERIMENT
    Umberger, Wendy J.
    Reardon, Thomas
    Stringer, Randy
    Loose, Simone Mueller
    BULLETIN OF INDONESIAN ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2015, 51 (03) : 461 - 477
  • [34] A Best-Worst Scaling Experiment to Prioritize Caregiver Concerns About ADHD Medication for Children
    Ross, Melissa
    Bridges, John F. P.
    Ng, Xinyi
    Wagner, Lauren D.
    Frosch, Emily
    Reeves, Gloria
    dosReis, Susan
    PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, 2015, 66 (02) : 208 - 211
  • [35] Comparing the Self-Reported Acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
    Li, Fuming
    Liu, Shimeng
    Gu, Yuanyuan
    Li, Shunping
    Tao, Ying
    Wei, Yan
    Chen, Yingyao
    PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE, 2024, 18 : 1803 - 1813
  • [36] Do women and providers value the same features of contraceptive products? Results of a best-worst stated preference experiment
    Weisberg, Edith
    Bateson, Deborah
    Knox, Stephanie
    Haas, Marion
    Viney, Rosalie
    Street, Deborah
    Fiebig, Denzil
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CONTRACEPTION AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, 2013, 18 (03): : 181 - 190
  • [37] What influences chronic pain management? A best-worst scaling experiment with final year medical students and general practitioners
    Rankin, Linda
    Fowler, Christopher John
    Stalnacke, Britt-Marie
    Gallego, Gisselle
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2019, 13 (04) : 214 - 225
  • [38] Community stakeholder preferences for evidence-based practice implementation strategies in behavioral health: a best-worst scaling choice experiment
    Williams, Nathaniel J.
    Candon, Molly
    Stewart, Rebecca E.
    Byeon, Y. Vivian
    Bewtra, Meenakshi
    Buttenheim, Alison M.
    Zentgraf, Kelly
    Comeau, Carrie
    Shoyinka, Sonsunmolu
    Beidas, Rinad S.
    BMC PSYCHIATRY, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [39] Community stakeholder preferences for evidence-based practice implementation strategies in behavioral health: a best-worst scaling choice experiment
    Nathaniel J. Williams
    Molly Candon
    Rebecca E. Stewart
    Y. Vivian Byeon
    Meenakshi Bewtra
    Alison M. Buttenheim
    Kelly Zentgraf
    Carrie Comeau
    Sonsunmolu Shoyinka
    Rinad S. Beidas
    BMC Psychiatry, 21
  • [40] Using best-worst scaling method to examine consumers' value preferences: A multidimensional perspective
    Parvin, Shehely
    Wang, Paul
    Uddin, Jashim
    COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT, 2016, 3