header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Research

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 8 - 8
1 May 2017
Barlow T Scott P Griffin D Realpe A
Full Access

Background

There is a 20% dissatisfaction rate with knee replacements. Calls for tools that can pre-operatively identify patients at risk of being dissatisfied postoperatively have been widespread. However, it is unclear what sort of information patients would want from such a tool, how it would affect their decision making process, and at what part of the pathway such a tool should be used.

Methods

Using focus groups involving 12 participants and in-depth interviews with 10 participants, we examined the effect outcome prediction has by providing fictitious predictions to patients at different stages of treatment. A qualitative analysis of themes, based on a constant comparative method, is used to analyse the data. This study was approved by the Dyfed Powys Research Ethics Committee (13/WA/0140).


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_8 | Pages 33 - 33
1 Apr 2017
Barlow T Griffin D Scott P Realpe A
Full Access

Background

Knee replacement surgery is currently facing three dilemmas: a high dissatisfaction rate; increasing demand with financial constraints; and variation in utilisation. A patient centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision-making, has the potential to help address these dilemmas. However, such an approach requires an understanding of the factors involved in patient decision-making. This is the first study examining decision-making in knee replacements that includes patients at different stages of decision-making – this is critical when considering decision-making as a process. We base our findings in a theoretical model, proposed by Elwyn et al, that highlights the distinction between deliberation and decision-making, and propose modifications to this model specific to knee replacement decision-making.

Methods

This study used two focus groups of six patients each and in-depth interviews with 10 patients to examine the factors that affect patient decision-making and their interaction at different points in the decision-making process. A qualitative analysis of themes, based on a constant comparative method, is used to analyse the data. This study was approved by the Dyfed Powys Research Ethics Committee (13/WA/0140).