Decision Making and Cost in Healthcare: The Patient Perspective.

Unsustainable spending and unsatisfactory outcomes have prompted a reanalysis of healthcare policy towards value. Several strategies have been proposed as part of this effort including cost sharing plans to shift costs to patients and gain-sharing models to shift risk to health systems. The patient perspective is rarely elicited in policy formation despite efforts to increase patient-centered care. We conducted a prospective study of 118 patients presenting to hand clinic to assess patient perspective of who should constrain treatment options (patient, physician, insurance company, hospital) and be responsible for costs in scenarios of clinical equipoise. We found that patients believed that insurance companies and hospitals should not constrain which treatment options are available to a patient and that physicians and patients should together influence the availability of treatment options. Patients were willing to cost share with insurance companies when choosing more expensive treatments or in the setting of non-life-threatening diseases. In addressing rising healthcare costs, patient perspectives can inform policies designed to increase value. Asking patients to cost share when choosing a more expensive treatment option in the setting of clinical equipoise could be a strategy for health systems to increase value. Level of Evidence: III (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 32(1):023-027, 2023).

Patient Education Materials Found via Google Search for Shoulder Arthroscopy Are Written at Too-High of a Reading Level.

Purpose: To evaluate the quality and correlation of readability on actionability and understandability of shoulder arthroscopy-related patient education materials (PEMs) found via a routine Google search. Methods: Two independent authors performed an online Google search with the term "shoulder arthroscopy." The first 5 pages of search results were then screened for PEMs. Journal articles, news articles, nontext materials, and unrelated websites were excluded. The readability of included resources was calculated using objective metrics: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index, Coleman-Liau Index, and the Gunning Fog Index. Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Printed Materials assessed for understandability and actionability. Associations between readability and actionability and understandability were determined using Spearman correlation and linear regression. Results: The searches returned 53 websites related to shoulder arthroscopy. A total of 34 (64%) met inclusion criteria. A high school reading level or greater was required to read the average PEM according to all scales used. The average PEM received a Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Printed Materials score of 61.33 in understandability (range 18.75-89.47) and 55.59 points in actionability (range 16.67-83.33). An easily understood or actionable article would score at least 70 points. A moderate correlation was observed between readability and actionability on three of the scales used (r = 0.5, r = 0.59, r = 0.61). Conclusions: Most shoulder arthroscopy PEMs identified on Google are not written at a level that the average patient can read, understand, or act on (actionability). Clinical Relevance: Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the resources that patients use to obtain medical information. More accessible PEMs should be developed for patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy to enhance comprehension of their condition and improve shared decision-making.

Positive Association Between Online Attention and the Bibliometric Impact of Shoulder Instability Publications.

Purpose: To obtain a quantifiable measure of the frequency with which a shoulder instability article is discussed online and the association with its corresponding bibliometric impact, based on the Scopus Cite Score (SCS) or Web of Science Impact Factor (WSIF). Methods: The top 100 most-mentioned articles on shoulder instability based on Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were extracted from the Altmetric Database. Mentions within blogs, news articles and outlets, public policy, and social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, were included. Study impact was assessed using SCS or WSIF. The degree of association between AAS and impact was determined using Spearman correlation, logarithmic regression, and multivariate regression. Results: The most common study designs were "Clinical Trial," with 52 articles (49.5%), "Systematic Review" with 16 articles (15.2%), and "Review" with 10 articles (9.5%). Twitter provided more online mentions than other platforms, with the average article being discussed 27.7 times (range 0-220 times). A significant positive effect (estimate = 2.616, P = .0075) was observed between the AAS and WSIF, based on the logarithmic regression. Multivariate regression revealed that blogs help raise both WSIF and SCS (estimate = 7.272, P < .05). Conclusions: Social media and other online platforms are a strong way to disseminate information to patients. A positive association was observed between overall online attention and the bibliometric impact of an article related to shoulder instability. Clinical trials related to shoulder instability that receive online mentions, especially discussion in blogs, are more likely to be cited in the future than their counterparts. Clinical Relevance: The results of our study can guide authors as they aim to disseminate their articles. Twitter may be used as a tool to reach patients who may not venture into academic journals with current peer-reviewed articles. Further, blogs may be used to reach academic audiences and raise bibliometric impact broadly.

Online Patient Education Materials for Common Sports Injuries Are Written at Too-High of a Reading Level: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To determine the readability of online patient information for common sports injuries. Methods: A systematic search of the literature using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the CINAHL databases was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies were included if they (1) were published between 2000 and September 2020, (2) were English-language publications and complete studies from peer-reviewed journals, (3) evaluated online information directed toward patients with common sports injuries. Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria and were included. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for online education information was 10.5, whereas the mean Flesch Reading Ease was 51.2, indicating existing health resources are written above the recommended readability grade level (no greater than a sixth-grade reading level). The mean DISCERN score was 41.5, indicating that the quality of information accessible to patients was fair. The accuracy of health content determined by the ACL-Specific Score was reported as moderate level (mean 8.85). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that online patient information regarding common sports injuries the does not match the readability recommendations of the American Medical Association and National Institutes of health. Clinical Relevance: Future health-related information should be written by qualified experts at a level that can be easily understood by patients of all health literacy levels. Surgeons should be more attentive to where patients get their information from and how they interpret it. Accurate, easy to understand educational tools can improve efforts to help patients identify misconceptions about treatment options, and to guide patients to choices that are consistent with their values.

Patient and Surgeon Ratings of Patient Involvement in Decision-Making Are Not Aligned.

BACKGROUND: Specialists want to guide patients toward making informed treatment choices consistent with what matters most to them (their values). One measure of this goal is alignment between patient and surgeon-perceived involvement in decision-making. We performed a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for musculoskeletal specialty care to determine agreement between patients and surgeons regarding patient involvement in shared decision-making. We also tested (1) factors associated with specialist-perceived involvement, accounting for the patient's perceived involvement in decision-making, and (2) factors associated with patient perception of involvement in decision-making, accounting for ratings of preferred involvement. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, 136 patients seeking musculoskeletal care for conditions involving the upper or lower extremities rated their preferred level of involvement in decision-making (Control Preferences Scale) before the visit and their perceived level of involvement (Modified Control Preferences Scale) after the visit. Participants also completed measures of symptoms of depression and pain self-efficacy. After the visit, the surgeons rated their perception of the patient's involvement in decision-making (Modified Control Preferences Scale). RESULTS: There was poor agreement between patients and surgeons regarding the extent of patient participation in decision-making (ICC = 0.11). The median difference was 1 point on a 5-point Likert scale (interquartile range: 0 to 1). Accounting for demographic characteristics and personal factors in multivariable analysis, specialists rated patients who did not have a high school diploma as having less involvement in decision-making. Specialist-perceived patient involvement in decision-making was not related to patient-perceived involvement. The only factor associated with higher patient-rated involvement was higher patient-preferred involvement (OR = 3.9; 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.8; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The observation that surgeons misperceive patient participation in decision-making emphasizes the need for strategies to ensure patient participation, such as methods to help patients gain awareness of what matters most to them (their values), clinician checklists for identification and reorientation of common misinterpretations of symptoms, and decision aids or motivational interviewing tools that can help to ensure that patient choices are consistent with their values and are unhindered by misconceptions.

Patient Engagement Approaches in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Review of Two Decades.

Patient engagement is a comprehensive approach to health care where the physician inspires confidence in the patient to be involved in their own care. Most research studies of patient engagement in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have come in the past 5 years (2015-2020), with no reviews investigating the different patient engagement methods in TJA. The primary purpose of this review is to examine patient engagement methods in TJA. The search identified 31 studies aimed at patient engagement methods in TJA. Based on our review, the conclusions therein strongly suggest that patient engagement methods in TJA demonstrate benefits throughout care delivery through tools focused on promoting involvement in decision making and accessible care delivery (eg, virtual rehabilitation, remote monitoring). Future work should understand the influence of social determinants on patient involvement in care, and overall cost (or savings) of engagement methods to patients and society.

Patient Willingness to Pay for Faster Return to Work or Smaller Incisions.

Background: Value-based health care models such as bundled payments and accountable care organizations can penalize health systems and physicians for excess costs leading to low-value care. Health systems can minimize these extra costs by constraining diagnostic (eg, magnetic resonance imaging utilization) or treatment options with debatable necessity in the setting of clinical equipoise. Instead of restricting more expensive treatments, it is plausible that health systems could instead recoup the extra costs of these treatments by charging patients supplementary out-of-pocket charges (cost sharing). The primary aim of this exploratory study was to assess hand surgery patient willingness to pay supplementary out-of-pocket charges for a procedure that theoretically leads to an earlier return to work or smaller incisions when there are 2 procedures that lead to similar results (clinical equipoise). Methods: A total of 122 patients completed a questionnaire that included demographic information, a financial distress assessment, a series of scenarios asking patients the degree to which they are willing to pay extra for the procedure choice, as well as their perspective of how much insurers should be responsible for these additional costs. Results: Patients were willing to pay out-of-pocket to some degree for a procedure that leads to earlier return to work and smaller incision size when compared with a similar alternative procedure, but noted that insurers should bear a greater burden of costs. Approximately 10% of patients were willing to pay maximum amounts ($2500+) for earlier return to work (3, 7, and 14 days earlier) and smaller incision sizes of any length. Conclusions: Some patients may be willing to pay out-of-pocket and cost share for procedures that lead to earlier return to work and smaller incisions in the setting of clinical equipoise. As such, when developing and implementing alternative payment models, health systems could potentially offer services with debatable necessity in the setting of equipoise for a supplementary out-of-pocket charge.

Maximization Personality, Disability and Symptoms of Psychosocial Disease in Hand Surgery Patients.

There are different frameworks to describe how people make decisions. One framework, maximization, is an approach where individuals approach choices with a goal of finding the 'best' possible alternative. We sought to determine the relationship between maximization and patient reported disability in patients with hand problems. We performed a cross-sectional study of 119 patients who presented to a hand surgery clinic. Patients completed a questionnaire that included sociodemographics, QuickDASH, Decisional Conflict Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, Health Anxiety Inventory and General Self-Efficacy. Maximization did not correlate with subjective disability in patients with hand problems. Depression, pain catastrophizing and a diagnosis of upper extremity fracture had the greatest independent association with disability.In patients presenting for an initial hand surgery consultation, maximization was not associated with variation in patient reported disability or symptoms of psychosocial disease. Alternative factors influencing patient decision-making and outcomes should be explored. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 29(2):106-111, 2020).

Are We Involving Patients in Shared Decision-Making in Young Adult Hip Surgery? A Systematic Review of Patient Engagement Initiatives in Hip Preservation.

There are limited published studies on patient engagement, including shared decision-making, in adolescents and young adults with complex congenital or post-traumatic hip disorders. Despite the limited number of papers, we aim to clearly summarize what is currently available in the literature using a systematic review approach. We hope this serves as a call to action and catalyst for more work in this field. Future research must focus on awareness of what matters most to patients (values), and the development, implementation, and barriers to the use of decision aids and patient engagement optimization specific to hip disease in young adults.

Patient Preferences for Shared Decision Making: Not All Decisions Should Be Shared.

INTRODUCTION: To assess bounds of shared decision making in orthopaedic surgery, we conducted an exploratory study to examine the extent to which patients want to be involved in decision making in the management of a musculoskeletal condition. METHODS: One hundred fifteen patients at an orthopaedic surgery clinic were asked to rate preferred level of involvement in 25 common theoretical clinical decisions (passive [0], semipassive [1 to 4], equally shared involvement between patient and surgeon [5], semiactive [6 to 9], active [10]). RESULTS: Patients preferred semipassive roles in 92% of decisions assessed. Patients wanted to be most involved in scheduling surgical treatments (4.75 ± 2.65) and least involved in determining incision sizes (1.13 ± 1.98). No difference exists in desired decision-making responsibility between patients who had undergone orthopaedic surgery previously and those who had not. Younger and educated patients preferred more decision-making responsibility. Those with Medicare desired more passive roles. DISCUSSION: Despite the importance of shared decision making on delivering patient-centered care, our results suggest that patients do not prefer to share all decisions.

The Association of Financial Distress With Disability in Orthopaedic Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Increased out-of-pocket costs have led to patients bearing more of the financial burden for their care. Previous work has shown that financial burden and distress can affect outcomes, symptoms, satisfaction, and adherence to treatment. We asked the following questions: (1) Does patients' financial distress correlate with disability in patients with nonacute orthopaedic conditions? (2) Do patient demographic factors affect this correlation? METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of new patients presenting to a multispecialty orthopaedic clinic with a nonacute orthopaedic complication. Patients completed a demographics questionnaire, the InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index. Statistical analysis was done using Pearson's correlation. RESULTS: The mean score for financial distress was 4.10 (SD, 2.09; scale 1 [low distress] to 10 [high distress]; range, 1.13 to 10.0), and the mean disability score was 0.54 (SD, 0.65; scale 0 to 3; range, 0 to 2.75). A moderate positive correlation exists between financial distress and disability (r = 0.43; P < 0.01). Financial distress and disability were highest for poor, uneducated, Medicare patients. CONCLUSIONS: A moderate correlation exists between financial distress and disability in patients with nonacute orthopaedic conditions, particularly in patients with low socioeconomic status. Orthopaedic surgeons may benefit from identifying patients in financial distress and discussing the cost of treatment because of its association with disability and potentially inferior outcomes. Further investigation is needed to test whether decreasing financial distress decreases disability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III prospective cohort.

Can Patients Forecast Their Postoperative Disability and Pain?

BACKGROUND: Forecasting is a construct in which experiences and beliefs inform a projection of future outcomes. Current efforts to predict postoperative patient-reported outcome measures such as risk-stratifying models, focus on studying patient, surgeon, or facility variables without considering the mindset of the patient. There is no evidence assessing the association of a patient's forecasted postoperative disability with realized postoperative disability. Patient-forecasted disability could potentially be used as a tool to predict postoperative disability. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do patient-forecasted disability and pain correlate with patient-realized disability and pain after hand surgery? (2) What other factors are associated with patient ability to forecast disability and pain? METHODS: We completed a prospective, longitudinal study to assess the association between forecasted and realized postoperative pain and disability as a predictive tool. One hundred eighteen patients of one hand/upper extremity surgeon were recruited from November 2016 to February 2018. Inclusion criteria for the study were patients undergoing hand or upper extremity surgery, older than 18 years of age, and English fluency and literacy. We enrolled 118 patients; 32 patients (27%) dropped out as a result of incomplete postoperative questionnaires. The total number of patients eligible was not tracked. Eighty-six patients completed the preoperative and postoperative questionnaires. Exclusion criteria included patients unable to give informed consent, children, patients with dementia, and nonEnglish speakers. Before surgery, patients completed a questionnaire that asked them to forecast their upper extremity disability (DASH [the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand] [QuickDASH]) and pain VAS (pain from 0 to 10) for 2 weeks after their procedure. The questionnaire also queried the following psychologic factors as explanatory variables, in addition to other demographic and socioeconomic variables: the General Self Efficacy Scale, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale. At the 2-week followup appointment, patients completed the QuickDASH and pain VAS to assess their realized disability and pain scores. Bivariate analysis was used to test the association of forecasted and realized disability and pain reporting Pearson correlation coefficients. Unpaired t-tests were performed to test the association of demographic variables (for example, men vs women) and the association of forecasted and realized disability and pain levels. One-way analysis of variance was used for variables with multiple groups (for example, annual salary and ethnicity). All p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Forecasted postoperative disability was moderately correlated with realized postoperative disability (r = 0.59; p < 0.001). Forecasted pain was weakly correlated with realized postoperative pain (r = 0.28; p = 0.011). A total of 47% of patients (n = 40) were able to predict their disability score within the MCID of their realized disability score. Symptoms of depression also correlated with increased realized postoperative disability (r = 0.37; p < 0.001) and increased realized postoperative pain (r = 0.42; p < 0.001). Catastrophic thinking was correlated with increased realized postoperative pain (r = 0.31; p = 0.004). Patients with symptoms of depression realized greater pain postoperatively than what they forecasted preoperatively (r = -0.24; p = 0.028), but there was no association between symptoms of depression and patients' ability to forecast disability (r = 0.2; p = 0.058). Patient age was associated with a patient's ability to forecast disability (r = .27; p = 0.011). Catastrophic thinking, self-efficacy, and number of prior surgical procedures were not associated with a patient's ability to forecast their postoperative disability or pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing hand surgery can moderately forecast their postoperative disability. Surgeons can use forecasted disability to identify patients who may experience greater disability compared with benchmarks, for example, forecast and experience high QuickDASH scores after surgery, and inform preoperative discussions and interventions focused on expectation management, resilience, and mindset. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Cost in Hand Surgery: The Patient Perspective.

PURPOSE: Rising costs at the patient level have been recognized and shown to directly influence patient decisions. By understanding patient interests in discussing cost, hand surgeons may better prepare themselves and their practices to communicate costs with patients. METHODS: We surveyed 128 patients at an upper extremity surgery clinic at their 2-week postoperative visit. Survey domains included basic patient demographics and an assessment of patient financial distress, along with questions that rated patient interest with patient-physician financial conversations. These factors included patients' desire for a conversation regarding cost, whether or not patients have discussed cost with their surgeon, barriers to these discussions, and overall views concerning cost containment in hand care. RESULTS: Seven percent of patients discussed the costs of their surgical care with their physician. Eleven percent of patients reported that a doctor should not discuss the costs of their surgical care. Forty-eight percent of patients reported that a doctor should initiate a conversation regarding costs of care when a new treatment is being considered. Fifty-nine percent of patients agreed that physicians should consider the amount of money a patient will have to pay when choosing a new treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients can experience financial hardship as a result of their surgery and some patients are interested in discussing costs with their doctor. Patients indicated that doctors should be concerned with lowering the costs of surgery and should initiate a conversation regarding costs of care when a new treatment is being considered. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients are interested in a conversation regarding their cost of hand surgery care. Making cost data more transparent and available to physicians and patients may facilitate communication regarding cost of care.

The Role of Patient Research in Patient Trust in Their Physician.

PURPOSE: Trust is foundational to the patient-physician relationship. However, there is limited information on the patient characteristics and behaviors that are related to patient trust. We investigated whether the time patients spend researching their physician and/or symptoms before a clinic visit was correlated with patient trust in their hand surgeon. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of new patients (n = 134) who presented to a hand surgery clinic. We tested the null hypothesis that time spent researching the physician or symptom does not correlate with physician trust. Secondarily, we tested the association of a maximizing personality (a decision-making personality type defined as one who exhaustively searches for the "best option" as opposed to a "satisficer" who settles for the "good enough" decision) with time spent researching the hand surgeon and patient symptoms, general self-efficacy (one's ability to manage adversity), and patient trust. Patients completed a questionnaire assessing demographics, patient researching behavior, general self-efficacy (GSE-6), maximizing personality (Maximization Short Form), and physician trust (Trust in Physician Form). RESULTS: The average age of our cohort was 50 ± 17 years, and men and women were equally represented. Patients spent more time researching their symptoms (median, 60 min; range, 5-1,201 min) than they did researching their physician (median, 20 min; range, 1-1,201 min). There was no correlation between time spent by patients seeking information on their hand surgeon and/or symptoms with patient trust in their physician. However, female patients were significantly more trusting of their physician than male patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients research their symptoms before clinic, whereas about half research their physicians before meeting them. Time spent seeking information before clinic was not correlated with patient trust in their physician. However, in our study, female patients were more likely to trust their hand surgeon than male patients. Thus, modifying physician behavior rather than patient characteristics may be a stronger driver of patient trust. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Impact of Health Literacy on Time Spent Seeking Hand Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with limited health literacy may have less knowledge and fewer resources for efficient access and navigation of the health care system. We tested the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between health literacy and total time spent seeking hand surgery care. METHODS: New patients visiting a hand surgery clinic at a suburban academic medical center were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine demographics, total time spent seeking hand surgery care, and outcomes. A total of 112 patients were included in this study. RESULTS: We found health literacy levels did not correlate with total time seeking hand surgery care or from booking an appointment to being evaluated in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: In this suburban academic medical center, patients with low health literacy do not spend more time seeking hand surgery care and do have longer delays between seeking and receiving care. The finding that-at least in this setting-health literacy does not impact patient time seeking hand care suggests that resources to improve health disparities can be focused elsewhere in the care continuum.