↓ Skip to main content

How outcome prediction could affect patient decision making in knee replacements: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How outcome prediction could affect patient decision making in knee replacements: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1165-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy Barlow, Patricia Scott, Damian Griffin, Alba Realpe

Abstract

There is approximately a 17 % dissatisfaction rate with knee replacements. Calls for tools that can pre-operatively identify patients at risk of being dissatisfied have been widespread. However, it is not known how to present such information to patients, how it would affect their decision making process, and at what part of the pathway such a tool should be used. Using focus groups involving 12 participants and in-depth interviews with 10 participants, we examined how individual predictions of outcome could affect patients' decision making by providing fictitious predictions to patients at different stages of treatment. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Our results demonstrate several interesting findings. Firstly, patients who have received information from friends and family are unwilling to adjust their expectation of outcome down (i.e. to a worse outcome), but highly willing to adjust it up (to a better outcome). This is an example of the optimism bias, and suggests that the effect on expectation of a poor outcome prediction would be blunted. Secondly, patients generally wanted a "bottom line" outcome, rather than lots of detail. Thirdly, patients who were earlier in their treatment for osteoarthritis were more likely to find the information useful, and it was more likely to affect their decision, than patients later in their treatment pathway. This research suggest that an outcome prediction tool would have most effect targeted towards people at the start of their treatment pathway, with a "bottom line" prediction of outcome. However, any effect on expectation and decision making of a poor outcome prediction is likely to be blunted by the optimism bias. These findings merit replication in a larger sample size.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Psychology 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 28 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,238
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,138
of 4,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,286
of 364,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#64
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.