Industry Payments and Sentiments Toward Robotic Surgery Among US Physicians.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Wei San Loh, Andrew M Ibrahim, Sarah Sheskey, Colleen M Stone, Kyle H Sheetz
{"title":"Industry Payments and Sentiments Toward Robotic Surgery Among US Physicians.","authors":"Wei San Loh, Andrew M Ibrahim, Sarah Sheskey, Colleen M Stone, Kyle H Sheetz","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Given the rapid adoption of robotic surgery and its association with substantial industry payments, objective documentation of physicians' perceptions toward robotic surgery is important.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess US-based physicians' sentiments toward robotic surgery and whether industry payments are associated with their perceptions.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This cohort study analyzed publicly available posts made from March 19, 2009, to April 1, 2024, by 268 US-based physicians who followed the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons on X (formerly Twitter). Trainees and individuals without validated clinical practices were excluded. Physicians' specialties were confirmed using the National Provider Identifier Registry.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Payments from Intuitive Surgical Inc, a biotechnology company that manufactures robotic products for use in surgery, were identified via the Open Payments website. Among the physicians, 177 (66.0%) received payments and 91 (34.0%) did not.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Polarity and subjectivity scores of social media posts shared by physicians. Polarity was scored from -1 to 1, with higher scores reflecting more positive sentiment, lower scores reflecting more negative sentiment, and 0 indicating neutrality. Subjectivity was scored from 0 to 1, with higher scores reflecting more subjective opinions and lower scores reflecting objective facts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study comprised 268 physicians (154 men [57.5%], 68 women [25.4%], and 46 physicians [17.2%] with sex not reported; 113 general surgeons [42.2%] and 155 physicians in surgical subspecialties [57.8%]). The overall sentiment scores ranged from -0.25 to 0.5 (mean [SD] score, 0.1 [0.2]; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) and subjectivity scores ranged from 0 to 0.9 (mean [SD] score, 0.4 [0.2]; 95% CI, 0.38-0.41), suggesting that posts were relatively objective with occasional personal insights. No significant difference was seen in mean polarity scores between the 177 physicians who received payments and the 91 physicians who did not (mean [SD] score, 0.12 [0.2]; 95% CI, 0.09-0.14 vs 0.1 [0.2]; 95% CI, 0.07-0.14). Physicians posting before and after receiving industry payments showed consistent positive sentiments (median polarity, 0.1 [IQR, 0.03-0.21]) and decreased subjectivity after receiving payment. Physicians in the top 25% of payment distribution had more positive sentiments and increased subjectivity after receiving payments, whereas those in the bottom 75% showed little change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cohort study of US-based physicians, publicly available social media data were used to quantify perceptions of robotic surgery. These findings demonstrate the potential of such data to inform health care practices, guide balanced information dissemination, and uphold the integrity of health information shared by physicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 2","pages":"e2458552"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58552","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Given the rapid adoption of robotic surgery and its association with substantial industry payments, objective documentation of physicians' perceptions toward robotic surgery is important.

Objective: To assess US-based physicians' sentiments toward robotic surgery and whether industry payments are associated with their perceptions.

Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study analyzed publicly available posts made from March 19, 2009, to April 1, 2024, by 268 US-based physicians who followed the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons on X (formerly Twitter). Trainees and individuals without validated clinical practices were excluded. Physicians' specialties were confirmed using the National Provider Identifier Registry.

Exposure: Payments from Intuitive Surgical Inc, a biotechnology company that manufactures robotic products for use in surgery, were identified via the Open Payments website. Among the physicians, 177 (66.0%) received payments and 91 (34.0%) did not.

Main outcomes and measures: Polarity and subjectivity scores of social media posts shared by physicians. Polarity was scored from -1 to 1, with higher scores reflecting more positive sentiment, lower scores reflecting more negative sentiment, and 0 indicating neutrality. Subjectivity was scored from 0 to 1, with higher scores reflecting more subjective opinions and lower scores reflecting objective facts.

Results: This study comprised 268 physicians (154 men [57.5%], 68 women [25.4%], and 46 physicians [17.2%] with sex not reported; 113 general surgeons [42.2%] and 155 physicians in surgical subspecialties [57.8%]). The overall sentiment scores ranged from -0.25 to 0.5 (mean [SD] score, 0.1 [0.2]; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) and subjectivity scores ranged from 0 to 0.9 (mean [SD] score, 0.4 [0.2]; 95% CI, 0.38-0.41), suggesting that posts were relatively objective with occasional personal insights. No significant difference was seen in mean polarity scores between the 177 physicians who received payments and the 91 physicians who did not (mean [SD] score, 0.12 [0.2]; 95% CI, 0.09-0.14 vs 0.1 [0.2]; 95% CI, 0.07-0.14). Physicians posting before and after receiving industry payments showed consistent positive sentiments (median polarity, 0.1 [IQR, 0.03-0.21]) and decreased subjectivity after receiving payment. Physicians in the top 25% of payment distribution had more positive sentiments and increased subjectivity after receiving payments, whereas those in the bottom 75% showed little change.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of US-based physicians, publicly available social media data were used to quantify perceptions of robotic surgery. These findings demonstrate the potential of such data to inform health care practices, guide balanced information dissemination, and uphold the integrity of health information shared by physicians.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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