Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose (1) To assess responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L compared to Oxford hip and knee scores and the SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip (THR) or knee (TKR) replacement surgery; (2) to compare distribution and anchor-based methods of assessing responsiveness. Methods Questionnaires were mailed to consecutive patients following surgeon referral for primary THR or TKR and 1 year post-surgery. We assessed effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and standard error of measurement (SEM). Minimum important difference (MID) was the mean change in patients reporting somewhat better in hip or knee, health in general, and those who were satisfied with surgery (5-point scales). Responders were compared using MID versus 1 and 2SEM. Results The sample of 537 (50% TKR) was composed of 56% female with a mean age of 64 years (SD 10). EQ-5D-5L ES was 1.86 (THR) and 1.19 (TKR) compared to 3.00 and 2.05 for Oxford scores, respectively. MID for the EQ-5D-5L was 0.22 (THR) and 0.20 (TKR) for patients who rated their hip or knee as somewhat better. There was a wide variation in the MID and the percentage of responders, depending on the joint, method of assessment, and the outcome measure. The percent agreement of responder classification using 2SEM vs. MID ranged from 79.6 to 99.6% for the EQ-5D-5L and from 69.4 to 94.8% for the Oxford scores. Conclusions Responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L was acceptable in TKR and THR. Caution should be taken in interpreting responder to TJR based on only one method of assessment.

Purpose To assess (1) patient expectations before total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement; (2) which expectations are met and unmet 6 and 12 months post-surgery; (3) the role of unmet expectations in satisfaction. Methods Questionnaires were mailed to consecutive patients following surgeon referral for primary THR or TKR. Patients listed their own expectations and also completed the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) Expectation Survey. We used content analysis to group expectations into themes. At 6 and 12 months post-surgery, patients were given a copy of their own list of individual expectations and reassessed each one as met or unmet. We also assessed fulfilled HSS expectations and satisfaction with surgery. Results The sample of 556 patients (49% THR, 57% female) had a mean age of 64 years (SD10). The five most frequent expectation themes were pain relief, mobility, walking, physical activities, and daily activities. Of these, physical activities had the lowest percentage met 12 months post-surgery. 95% (THR) and 87% (TKR) were satisfied/very satisfied with their surgery 12 months post-surgery. Very satisfied patients had a significantly greater percentage of met expectations (96% THR; 92% TKR) than dissatisfied patients (42% THR; 12% TKR). Although most expectations listed by patients were included in the HSS surveys, some were not, particularly for TKR. From 6 to 12 months, there was a significant increase in patient satisfaction for self-care, daily activities, and met expectations for THR and pain relief, self-care, daily activities, and recreational activities for TKR. Conclusions Expectations should be explicitly addressed before surgery, including a discussion of realistic expectations, particularly for physical activities.

Purpose To assess the test-retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L (5L) and compare the validity of the 5L and EQ-5D3L (3L) in osteoarthritis patients referred to an orthopaedic surgeon for total joint replacement. Methods We mailed questionnaires to 306 consecutive patients following referral and a second questionnaire after 2 weeks to assess reliability. Questionnaires included the 5L, EQ-VAS, Short Form-12, Oxford hip and knee scores, pain VAS, and the 3L. We compared the ceiling effect, redistribution properties, convergent and discriminant validity, and discriminatory power of the 5L and 3L. Results We obtained 176 respondents (response rate 58 %), 60 % female, 64 % knee patients, mean age 65 years (SD 11), with no significant differences between responders versus non-responders. Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.61-0.77 for the 5L dimensions and 0.87 for the 5L index. For the 3L, most patients used level 2 (some/moderate problems) for mobility (87 %), usual activities (78 %), and pain/discomfort (71 %). In comparison, 5L responses were spread out with only 52, 42, and 50 %, respectively, using the middle level. All convergent validity coefficients were stronger with the 5L (Spearman coefficients 0.51-0.75). Absolute informativity (Shannon's index) showed higher results for all dimensions of the 5L compared with the 3L (average difference 0.74). Relative informativity (Shannon's evenness index) showed an increase from the 3L to the 5L in mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort. Conclusions The 5L provided stronger validity evidence than the 3L, especially for dimensions relevant to this patient population—mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort.

Purpose To define patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) cut-off values for the EQ-5D-5L and Oxford hip (OHS) and knee (OKS) scores 6 and 12 months after total hip (THR) or knee (TKR) replacement. To compare PASS cut-off values for the EQ-5D-5L scored using: (1) the Canadian value set, (2) the crosswalk value set, and (3) the equal weighted Level Sum Score (LSS). Methods We mailed questionnaires to consecutive patients following surgeon referral for primary THR or TKR and at 6 and 12 months post-surgery. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were the EQ-5D-5L, the OHS, and OKS. We assessed PASS cut-off values for PROMs using percentile and ROC methods, with the Youden Index. Results Five hundred forty-two surgical patients (mean age, 64 years, 57% female, 49% THR) completed baseline and 12-month questionnaires. 89% of THR and 81% of TKR patients rated PASS as acceptable at 12 months. PASS cut-off values for THR for the EQ-5D-5L (Canadian) were 0.85 (percentile) and 0.84 (Youden) at 12 months. Cut-off values were similar for the LSS (0.85 and 0.85) and lower for the crosswalk value set (0.74 and 0.73), respectively. EQ-5D-5L cut-off values for TKR were Canadian, 0.77 (Percentile) and 0.78 (Youden), LSS, 0.75 and 0.80, and crosswalk, 0.67 and 0.74, respectively. Cut-off values 6 and 12 months post-surgery ranged from 38 to 39 for the OHS, and 28 to 36 for the OKS (range 0 worst to 48 best). Conclusion PASS cut-off values for the EQ-5D-5L and Oxford scores varied, not only between methods and timing of assessment, but also by different EQ-5D-5L value sets, which vary between countries. Because of this variation, PASS cut-off values are not necessarily generalizable to other populations of TJR patients. We advise caution in interpreting PROMs when using EQ-5D-5L PASS cut-off values developed in different countries. A standardization of methods is needed before published cut-off values can be used with confidence in other populations.

BackgroundSingle-entry models (SEMs) for the management of patients awaiting elective surgical services are designed to increase access and flow through the system of care. We assessed scope of use and influence of SEMs on access (waiting times/throughput) and patient-centredness (patient/provider acceptability).MethodsSystematic review of articles published in 6 relevant electronic databases included studies from database inception to July 2016. Included studies needed to (1) report on the nature of the SEM; (2) specify elective service and (3) address at least 1 of 3 research questions related to (1) scope of use of SEMs; (2) influence on timeliness and access; (3) patient-centredness and acceptability. Article quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist.Results11 studies from Canada, Australia and the UK were included with mostly weak observational design—2 simulations, 5 before–after, 2 descriptive and 2 cross-sectional studies. 9 studies showed a decrease in patient waiting times; 6 showed that more patients were meeting benchmark waiting times; and 5 demonstrated that waiting lists decreased using an SEM as compared with controls. Patient acceptability was examined in 6 studies, with high levels of satisfaction reported. Acceptability among general practitioners/surgeons was mixed, as reported in 1 study. Research varied widely in design, scope, reported outcomes and overall quality.ConclusionsThis is the first review to assess the influence of SEMs on access to elective surgery for adults. This review demonstrates a potential ability for SEMs to improve timeliness and patient-centredness of elective services; however, the small number of low-quality studies available does not support firm conclusions about the effectiveness of SEMs to improve access. Further evaluation with higher quality designs and rigour is required.

Background While some studies have identified patient readiness as a key component in their decision whether to have total joint replacement surgery (TJR), none have examined how patients determine their readiness for surgery. The study purpose was to explore the concept of patient readiness and describe the factors patients consider when assessing their readiness for TJR. Methods Nine focus groups (4 pre-surgery, 5 post-surgery) were held in four Canadian cities. Participants had been either referred to or seen by an orthopaedic surgeon for TJR or had undergone TJR. The method of analysis was qualitative thematic analysis. Results There were 65 participants, 66% female and 34% male, 80% urban, with an average age of 65 years (SD 10). Readiness reflected both the surgeon’s advice that the patient was clinically ready for surgery and the patient’s feeling that they were both mentally and physically ready for surgery. Mental readiness was described as an internal state or feeling of being ready or prepared while physical readiness was described as being physically fit and in good shape for surgery. Factors associated with readiness included: 1) pain: its severity, the ability to cope with it, and how it affected their quality of life; 2) mental preparation; 3) physical preparation; 4) the optimal timing of surgery, including age, anticipated rate of deterioration, prosthesis lifespan and the length of the waiting list. Conclusions Patient readiness should be assessed prior to TJR. By assessing patient readiness, health professionals can elucidate and deal with concerns and fears, understand and calibrate expectations, assess coping strategies, and use this information to help determine optimal timing, both before and after the surgical consultation.

Background: Although the option of next available surgeon can be found on surgeon referral forms for total joint replacement surgery, its selection varies across surgical practices. Objectives: Objectives are to assess the determinants of (a) a patient's request for a particular surgeon; and (b) the actual referral to a specific versus the next available surgeon. Methods: Questionnaires were mailed to 306 consecutive patients referred to orthopedic surgeons. We assessed quality of life (Oxford Hip and Knee scores, Short Form-12, EuroQol 5D, Pain Visual Analogue Scale), referral experience, and the importance of surgeon choice, surgeon reputation, and wait time. We used logistic regression to build models for the 2 objectives. Results: We obtained 176 respondents (response rate, 58%), 60% female, 65% knee patients, mean age of 65 years, with no significant differences between responders versus nonresponders. Forty-three percent requested a particular surgeon. Seventy-one percent were referred to a specific surgeon. Patients who rated surgeon choice as very/extremely important [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 6.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.57–16.64] and with household incomes of $90,000+ versus <$30,000 (OR, 5.74; 95% CI, 1.56–21.03) were more likely to request a particular surgeon. Hip patients (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.18–7.78), better Physical Component Summary-12 (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.02–1.63), and patients who rated surgeon choice as very/extremely important (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 1.56–9.70) were more likely to be referred to a specific surgeon. Conclusions: Most patients want some choice in the referral decision. Providing sufficient information is important, so that patients are aware of their choices and can make an informed choice. Some patients prefer a particular surgeon despite longer wait times.

Objectives Although MRI data supports a link between spinal inflammation and formation of new bone in ankylosing spondylitis, anti-tumour necrosis factor α therapies have not been shown to prevent new bone formation. The authors aimed to demonstrate that while acute lesions resolve completely, more advanced lesions, characterised by evidence of reparation, are associated with new bone formation. Methods MRI scans were performed at baseline, 12 and 52 weeks in 76 ankylosing spondylitis patients recruited to a placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab therapy. New syndesmophytes were assessed on lateral radiographs of the cervical and lumbar spine at baseline and 104 weeks. Anonymised MRI scans were read independently by two readers who recorded the presence/absence of acute (type A) and advanced (type B) vertebral corner inflammatory lesions (CIL) and fat lesions. The authors used generalised linear latent and mixed models analysis to adjust for the extent of syndesmophytes/ankylosis at baseline. Results New syndesmophytes developed significantly more frequently from type B CIL (16.7%) compared with type A CIL (2.9%) (p=0.002) or no CIL (2.5%) (p<0.0001). This was also observed for both baseline and new vertebral corner fat lesions evolving over 52 weeks (11.1% (p<0.001) and 6.8% (p=0.03), respectively). The association with type B CIL (OR (95% CI 3.88, 1.20 to –12.57) and fat (OR 95% CI 4.83, 2.38– to 9.80), p<0.0001) was significant after adjustment for the extent of syndesmophytes/ankylosis at baseline. Conclusions Our data supports the hypothesis that new bone formation is more likely in advanced inflammatory lesions and proceeds through a process of fat metaplasia, supporting a window of opportunity for disease modification.

Objectives: This report is a scoping review of the literature with the objective of identifying definitions, conceptual models and frameworks, as well as the methods and range of perspectives, for determining appropriateness in the context of healthcare delivery. Methods: To lay groundwork for future, intervention-specific research on appropriateness, this work was carried out as a scoping review of published literature since 1966. Two reviewers, with two screens using inclusion/exclusion criteria based on the objective, focused the research and articles chosen for review. Results: The first screen examined 2,829 abstracts/titles, with the second screen examining 124 full articles, leaving 37 articles deemed highly relevant for data extraction and interpretation. Appropriateness is defined largely in terms of net clinical benefit to the average patient and varies by service and setting. The most widely used method to assess appropriateness of healthcare services is the RAND/UCLA Model. There are many related concepts such as medical necessity and small-areas variation. Conclusions: A broader approach to determining appropriateness for healthcare interventions is possible and would involve clinical, patient and societal perspectives.

To improve access to care, many jurisdictions have proposed waiting-time benchmarks and guarantees. We assessed the willingness of patients to consider changing their surgeon to one with a shorter waiting time for arthroplasty. We mailed a questionnaire to 2 random samples of patients who either were awaiting hip or knee replacement arthroplasty or had had one of these procedures within the preceding 3–12 months. We used logistic regression to assess the determinants of patients' likelihood to consider changing surgeons. Of 1200 responses from a sample of 2000, 557 (46%) were from patients awaiting surgery and 643 (54%) were from people who had undergone surgery. The mean age of respondents was 69.9 years (standard deviation 10.8), and 682 (57%) were women. The median waiting time for surgery was 8 months. Overall, 753 (63%) of the patients were unlikely to consider changing surgeons. Increased likelihood of changing surgeons was associated with male sex (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–2.02), a high school education or higher (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15–2.62) and having already undergone surgery (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.19–2.46). Decreased likelihood was associated with preference for a particular surgeon before referral (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42–0.79), a better score on the EuroQol (EQ-5D) index (a measure of health-related quality of life) (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24–0.66), perception that the waiting time to see the surgeon was acceptable (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36–0.70), perception that the waiting time to surgery was acceptable (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43–0.91) and perceived fairness of treatment (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36–0.78). Despite long waits for surgery, most patients, if given the choice, would be unlikely to change their surgeon to one with a shorter waiting time. Une version française de ce résumé est disponible à l'adresse www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/4/327/DC1 CMAJ 2008;179(4):327-32