Abstract
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).
Results
Our results demonstrate several interesting findings. Firstly, patients who have received information from friends and family are unwilling to adjust their expectation of outcome down (i.e. to a worse outcome), but highly willing to adjust it up (to a better outcome). This is an example of the optimism bias, and suggests the effect on expectation of any poor outcome prediction would be blunted. Secondly, patients generally wanted a “bottom line” outcome, rather than lots of detail. Thirdly, patients who were earlier in their treatment for osteoarthritis were more likely to find the information useful, and for it to affect their decision, than patients later in their pathway.
Conclusion
An outcome prediction tool would have most effect targeted towards people at the start of their treatment pathway, with a “bottom line” prediction of outcome. However, any effect on expectation and decision making of a poor outcome prediction is likely to be blunted by the optimism bias.
Level of Evidence
4
