Stakeholder prioritization preferences for individuals awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty.

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Luke Farrow, Nick D Clement, Diane Smith, R M Dominic Meek, Mandy Ryan, Katie Gillies, Lesley Anderson
{"title":"Stakeholder prioritization preferences for individuals awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty.","authors":"Luke Farrow, Nick D Clement, Diane Smith, R M Dominic Meek, Mandy Ryan, Katie Gillies, Lesley Anderson","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0178.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a 'priority score' (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 43 people participated in the initial round of the Delphi study (16 patients and 27 surgeons), with a 91% completion rate across all three rounds. Overall, 73 surgeons completed the DCE. Following the final consensus meeting of the Delphi component, the seven final factors designated for inclusion were Pain, Mobility/Function, Activities of Daily Living, Inability to Work/Care, Length of Time Waited, Radiological Severity, and Mental Wellbeing. Output from the adjusted multinomial regression revealed radiological severity to be the most significant factor (coefficient 2.27 (SD 0.31); p < 0.001), followed by pain (coefficient 1.08 (SD 0.13); p < 0.001) and time waited (coefficient for one month additional wait 0.12 (SD 0.02); p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results present a new robust method for determining comparative priority for those on primary hip and knee hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"107-B 1","pages":"89-96"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0178.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign.

Methods: A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a 'priority score' (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics.

Results: In total, 43 people participated in the initial round of the Delphi study (16 patients and 27 surgeons), with a 91% completion rate across all three rounds. Overall, 73 surgeons completed the DCE. Following the final consensus meeting of the Delphi component, the seven final factors designated for inclusion were Pain, Mobility/Function, Activities of Daily Living, Inability to Work/Care, Length of Time Waited, Radiological Severity, and Mental Wellbeing. Output from the adjusted multinomial regression revealed radiological severity to be the most significant factor (coefficient 2.27 (SD 0.31); p < 0.001), followed by pain (coefficient 1.08 (SD 0.13); p < 0.001) and time waited (coefficient for one month additional wait 0.12 (SD 0.02); p < 0.001).

Conclusion: These results present a new robust method for determining comparative priority for those on primary hip and knee hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required.

利益相关者优先选择等待髋关节和膝关节置换术的个体。
目的:髋关节和膝关节置换术的长时间等待引起了对等待手术的等待名单优先排序的当前方法的公平性的质疑。因此,我们开始了解关键利益相关者(患者和外科医生)对等待此类手术的患者优先级的偏好,以指导未来的等待名单重新设计。方法:采用定性与定量相结合的方法。这包括一项德尔菲研究,首先告知患者和外科医生认为哪些因素对髋关节和膝关节置换等待名单上的患者的优先级很重要,然后是一个离散选择实验(DCE),以确定这些因素应该如何相互权衡。每个包含的DCE属性的系数值用于构建“优先评分”(加权效益评分),该评分可用于根据各自特征对等待手术的个体患者进行排名。结果:共有43人参加了第一轮德尔菲研究(16名患者和27名外科医生),所有三轮的完成率为91%。总共有73名外科医生完成了DCE。在德尔菲组成部分的最终共识会议之后,指定纳入的七个最终因素是疼痛,活动能力/功能,日常生活活动,无法工作/护理,等待时间长度,放射严重程度和精神健康。调整后的多项回归结果显示,放射严重程度是最显著的因素(系数2.27 (SD 0.31);p < 0.001),其次是疼痛(系数1.08 (SD 0.13);p < 0.001)和等待时间(额外等待一个月的系数为0.12 (SD 0.02);P < 0.001)。结论:这些结果提供了一种新的可靠的方法来确定那些在初级髋关节和膝关节置换术等待名单上的比较优先级。现在需要对临床实践中的潜在实施进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Journal
Bone & Joint Journal ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.90%
发文量
318
期刊介绍: We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信