Sex-based Differences in Patient Perspectives and Experiences With Shoulder, Hip, and Knee Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Sex disparities in presentation of osteoarthritis and utilization of joint replacement surgery (JRS) have been demonstrated. The role of patients' unique perspectives on JRS on their treatment decisions is poorly understood. METHODS: JRS candidates who were offered JRS but declined surgical treatment completed this survey. Survey questions included demographic information, patient experiences and current opinions around JRS, patient experiences with providers, goals and concerns, and barriers to JRS. RESULTS: More women experience barriers to undergoing JRS compared with men (53% versus 16%; P = 0.014). While both men and women indicated pain relief as their primary goal for treatment, women were significantly more likely to prioritize regaining the ability to complete daily tasks and responsibilities when compared with men (P = 0.007). Both men and women indicated that low symptom severity and nonsurgical treatment options were the reasons for not undergoing JRS (P = 0.455). Compared with men, women trended toward feeling that they were not sufficiently educated about JRS (P = 0.051). CONCLUSION: Women have unique perspectives and goals for JRS that may pose sex-specific barriers to care. A better understanding of how patients' gendered experiences affect their decision making is necessary to improve treatment of osteoarthritis and decrease disparities in care.

Sex-Based Differences in the Utilization of Shoulder, Hip, and Knee Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that females have a higher prevalence of osteoarthritis, worse symptoms, but lower rates of joint replacement surgery (JRS). The reason for this remains unknown. METHODS: A database of JRS candidates was created for patients seen in 2019 at an academic center. Demographics, Kellgren-Lawrence grades, symptom duration, visual analogue pain score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and nonsurgical treatments were collected. Patients who were offered but declined surgery were invited to focus groups. Two independent sample t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and chi-square tests were used for continuous, scored, and categorical variables, respectively, with two-tailed significance <0.05. Qualitative, code-based analysis was performed for the focus groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 321 patients (81 shoulder, 59 hip, and 181 knee) including 199 females (62.0%). There were no differences in proportions of females versus males who underwent JRS or in nonsurgical treatments. Female shoulder arthritis patients were older, had a higher visual analogue pain score, and had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. In focus groups, males prioritized waiting for technology advancements to return to an active lifestyle, whereas females experienced negative provider interactions, self-advocated for treatment, concerned about pain, and believed that their sex affected their treatment. DISCUSSION: We found equal utilization of JRS at our institution. However, female patients experienced unique barriers to surgery.

Standardized Patients' Perspectives on Bias in Student Encounters.

PURPOSE: Standardized patient (SP) encounters are widely used in health professional education to evaluate trainees' clinical skills. Prior literature suggests that bias can influence the evaluations of student learners in SP-student encounters. Understanding how SPs perceive bias in their work and how they view their role in mitigating or perpetuating bias in simulation is an important first step in addressing bias in the SP-student encounter. METHOD: Researchers designed a qualitative interview study and conducted 16 semistructured interviews with SPs at the University of California, San Francisco Kanbar Simulation Center from July through September of 2020. Participants were selected using purposive sampling. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed by researchers using inductive thematic analysis. Researchers met iteratively to reconcile codes and identify themes. RESULTS: SPs identified bias occurring in multiple directions: SP-to-student, student-to-SP, student-to-character, and SP-to-character. SPs were hesitant to label their own biases and instead used words such as "comfort" or "preference." SPs reported little bias from students, because students were being evaluated and therefore behaving carefully. Additionally, SPs perceived bias in the implementation of health care simulation, which manifests as underrepresentation of certain groups amongst actors and character descriptions. Most SPs felt that they should play a role in mitigating bias in SP-student encounters, including addressing bias that occurs, challenging stereotypes, teaching about cultural differences, and/or being conscious of bias in their assessments of learners. CONCLUSIONS: In the SP-student encounter, bias can occur on many levels and between many individuals, including between the SP and the character they are portraying. Identifying the areas in which bias can exist can help simulation educators mitigate bias.

Beyond Checking Boxes: Exploring Tensions With Use of a Workplace-Based Assessment Tool for Formative Assessment in Clerkships.

PURPOSE: To understand the role of a workplace-based assessment (WBA) tool in facilitating feedback for medical students, this study explored changes and tensions in a clerkship feedback activity system through the lens of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) over 2 years of tool implementation. METHOD: This qualitative study uses CHAT to explore WBA use in core clerkships by identifying feedback activity system elements (e.g., community, tools, rules, objects) and tensions among these elements. University of California, San Francisco core clerkship students were invited to participate in semistructured interviews eliciting experience with a WBA tool intended to enhance direct observation and feedback in year 1 (2019) and year 2 (2020) of implementation. In year 1, the WBA tool required supervisor completion in the school's evaluation system on a computer. In year 2, both students and supervisors had WBA completion abilities and could access the form via a smartphone separate from the school's evaluation system. RESULTS: Thirty-five students participated in interviews. The authors identified tensions that shifted with time and tool iterations. Year 1 students described tensions related to cumbersome tool design, fear of burdening supervisors, confusion over WBA purpose, WBA as checking boxes, and WBA usefulness depending on clerkship context and culture. Students perceived dissatisfaction with the year 1 tool version among peers and supervisors. The year 2 mobile-based tool and student completion capabilities helped to reduce many of the tensions noted in year 1. Students expressed wider WBA acceptance among peers and supervisors in year 2 and reported understanding WBA to be for low-stakes feedback, thereby supporting formative assessment for learning. CONCLUSIONS: Using CHAT to explore changes in a feedback activity system with WBA tool iterations revealed elements important to WBA implementation, including designing technology for tool efficiency and affording students autonomy to document feedback with WBAs.