Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan;44(1):112-122.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X231205858. Epub 2023 Oct 30.

Implementation of a Decision Aid for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Orthopedics: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation

Jeroen Klaas Jacobus Bossen  1   2   3 , Julia Aline Wesselink  4 , Ide Christiaan Heyligers  1   2 , Jesse Jansen  4
Affiliations

Implementation of a Decision Aid for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Orthopedics: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation

Jeroen Klaas Jacobus Bossen et al. Med Decis Making. 2024 Jan.

Abstract

Background: In orthopedics, the use of patient decision aids (ptDAs) is limited. With a mixed-method process evaluation, we investigated patient factors associated with accepting versus declining the use of the ptDA, patients' reasons for declining the ptDA, and clinicians' perceived barriers and facilitators for its use.

Methods: Patients with an indication for joint replacement surgery (N = 153) completed questionnaires measuring demographics, physical functioning, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at 1 time point. Subsequently, their clinician offered them the relevant ptDA. Using a retrospective design, we compared patients who used the ptDA (59%) with patients who declined (41%) on all these measures as well as the chosen treatment. If the use of the ptDA was declined, patients' reasons were recorded by their clinician and analysed (n = 46). To evaluate the experiences of clinicians (n = 5), semistructured interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed. Clinicians who did not use the ptDA substantially (<10 times) were also interviewed (n = 3).

Results: Compared with patients who used the ptDA, patients who declined use had higher VAS pain scores (7.2 v. 6.2, P < .001), reported significantly worse quality of life (on 4 of 6 EQ-5D-3L subscales), and were less likely to receive nonsurgical treatment (4% v. 28%, P < .001). Of the patients who declined to use the ptDA, 46% said they had enough information and felt ready to make a decision without the ptDA. The interviews revealed that clinicians considered the ptDAs most useful for newly diagnosed patients who had not received previous treatment.

Conclusion: These results suggest that the uptake of a ptDA may be improved if it is introduced in the early disease stages of hip and knee osteoarthritis.

Highlights: Patients who declined the use of a patient decision aid (ptDA) for hip and knee osteoarthritis reported more pain and worse quality of life.Most patients who declined to use a ptDA felt sufficiently well informed to make a treatment decision.Patients who declined the ptDA were more likely to have received prior treatment in primary care.Clinicians found the ptDA to be a helpful addition to the consultation, particularly for newly diagnosed patients.

Keywords: evaluation study; orthopeadics; patient decision aids; shared decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of clinician participation for the interviews.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pie chart on patients’ motivation for declining the decision aid.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Shared decision making. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/ni... [Accessed 2022 April, 24] - PubMed
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al.. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD001431. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scalia P, Durand MA, Berkowitz JL, et al.. The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(5):817–41. DOI: 10.1016/J.PEC.2018.12.020 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cheng LJ, Bansback N, Liao M, et al.. Patient decision support interventions for candidates considering elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2023;109(5):1382–99. DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000302 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van der Weijden T, Post H, Brand PLP, et al.. Shared decision making, a buzz-word in the Netherlands, the pace quickens towards nationwide implementation. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017;123:69–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.05.016 - DOI - PubMed