Small Social Incentives Did Not Improve the Survey Response Rate of Patients Who Underwent Orthopaedic Surgery: A Randomized Trial

Young or Old Age and Non-White Race Are Associated With Poor Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Compliance After Orthopaedic Surgery

Purpose

To investigate orthopaedic patient compliance with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and identify factors that improve response rates.

Methods

Our search strategy comprised a combination of key words and database-specific subject headings for the concepts of orthopaedic surgical procedures, compliance, and PROMs from several research databases from inception to October 11, 2022. Duplicates were removed. A total of 97 studies were included. A table was created for the remaining articles to be appraised and analyzed. The collected data included study characteristics, follow-up/compliance rate, factors that increase/decrease compliance, and type of PROM. Follow-up/compliance rate was determined to be any reported response rate. The range and average used for analysis was based on the highest or lowest number reported in the specific article.

Results

The range of compliance reported was 11.3% to 100%. The overall response rate was 68.6%. The average baseline (preoperative/previsit) response rate was 76.6%. Most studies (77%) had greater than 50% compliance. Intervention/reminder of any type (most commonly phone call or mail) resulted in improved compliance from 44.6% to 70.6%. Young and elderly non-White male patients had the lowest compliance rate. When directly compared, phone call (71.5%) resulted in a greater compliance rate than electronic-based (53.2%) or paper-based (57.6%) surveys.

Conclusions

The response rates for PROMs vary across the orthopaedic literature. Patient-specific factors, such as age (young or old) and race (non-White), may contribute to poor PROM response rate. Reminders and interventions significantly improve PROM response rates.

Clinical Relevance

PROMs are important tools in many aspects of medicine. The data generated from these tools not only provide information about individual patient outcomes but also make hypothesis-driven comparisons possible. Understanding the factors that affect patient compliance with PROMs is vital to our accurate understanding of patient outcomes and the overall advancement of medical care.

Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires

BACKGROUND

Self-administered questionnaires are widely used to collect data in epidemiological research, but non-response reduces the effective sample size and can introduce bias. Finding ways to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires would improve the quality of epidemiological research.

OBJECTIVES

To identify effective strategies to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic databases up to December 2021 and manually searched the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews. We contacted the authors of all trials or reviews to ask about unpublished trials; where necessary, we also contacted authors to confirm the methods of allocation used and to clarify results presented.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of methods to increase response to postal or electronic questionnaires. We assessed the eligibility of each trial using pre-defined criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the trial participants, the intervention, the number randomised to intervention and comparison groups and allocation concealment. For each strategy, we estimated pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. We assessed evidence for selection bias using Egger's weighted regression method and Begg's rank correlation test and funnel plot. We assessed heterogeneity amongst trial odds ratios using a Chi2 test and quantified the degree of inconsistency between trial results using the I2 statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Postal We found 670 eligible trials that evaluated over 100 different strategies of increasing response to postal questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity amongst trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response almost doubled when: using monetary incentives (odds ratio (OR) 1.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 1.99; heterogeneity I2 = 85%); using a telephone reminder (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.74); and when clinical outcome questions were placed last (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 4.24). The odds of response increased by about half when: using a shorter questionnaire (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.78); contacting participants before sending questionnaires (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.51; I2 = 87%); incentives were given with questionnaires (i.e. unconditional) rather than when given only after participants had returned their questionnaire (i.e. conditional on response) (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.35 to 1.74); using personalised SMS reminders (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.97 to 2.42); using a special (recorded) delivery service (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.08; I2 = 87%); using electronic reminders (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33); using intensive follow-up (OR 1.69; 95% CI 0.93 to 3.06); using a more interesting/salient questionnaire (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.66); and when mentioning an obligation to respond (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.22). The odds of response also increased with: non-monetary incentives (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.21; I2 = 80%); a larger monetary incentive (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.33); a larger non-monetary incentive (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); when a pen was included (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.50); using personalised materials (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.21; I2 = 57%); using a single-sided rather than a double-sided questionnaire (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25); using stamped return envelopes rather than franked return envelopes (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.33; I2 = 69%), assuring confidentiality (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.42); using first-class outward mailing (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21); and when questionnaires originated from a university (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.54). The odds of response were reduced when the questionnaire included questions of a sensitive nature (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). Electronic We found 88 eligible trials that evaluated over 30 different ways of increasing response to electronic questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity amongst trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response tripled when: using a brief letter rather than a detailed letter (OR 3.26; 95% CI 1.79 to 5.94); and when a picture was included in an email (OR 3.05; 95% CI 1.84 to 5.06; I2 = 19%). The odds of response almost doubled when: using monetary incentives (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.71; I2 = 79%); and using a more interesting topic (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.26). The odds of response increased by half when: using non-monetary incentives (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.05); using shorter e-questionnaires (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.16; I2 = 94%); and using a more interesting e-questionnaire (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.26). The odds of response increased by a third when: offering survey results as an incentive (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.59); using a white background (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.56); and when stressing the benefits to society of response (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.78; I2 = 41%). The odds of response also increased with: personalised e-questionnaires (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32; I2 = 41%); using a simple header (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48); giving a deadline (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); and by giving a longer time estimate for completion (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.64). The odds of response were reduced when: "Survey" was mentioned in the e-mail subject (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97); when the email or the e-questionnaire was from a male investigator, or it included a male signature (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80); and by using university sponsorship (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.69 to 1.01). The odds of response using a postal questionnaire were over twice those using an e-questionnaire (OR 2.33; 95% CI 2.25 to 2.42; I2 = 98%). Response also increased when: providing a choice of response mode (electronic or postal) rather than electronic only (OR 1.76 95% CI 1.67 to 1.85; I2 = 97%); and when administering the e-questionnaire by computer rather than by smartphone (OR 1.62 95% CI 1.36 to 1.94).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Researchers using postal and electronic questionnaires can increase response using the strategies shown to be effective in this Cochrane review.

Wide Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet Technique in Hand Surgery: The Patient Experience

BACKGROUND

We attempted to evaluate patient satisfaction and overall experience during wide awake, local anesthesia, with no tourniquet (WALANT) hand surgery and quantify surgery-related outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient demographics, comorbidities, and patient reported outcomes via Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores collected pre- and postoperatively of patients undergoing WALANT surgery by the 2 participating senior authors. A solution of 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was used by 1 surgeon, while the other used a 1:1 ratio of 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 0.5% bupivacaine for local anesthetic injection. Patients were administered a postoperative survey to assess patient experience, including anxiety and pain levels, and overall satisfaction in the perioperative period.

RESULTS

Overall, 97.7% of patients indicated that they would undergo a WALANT-style surgery if indicated in the future, 70.5% ate the day of surgery, and a total of 39.1% of patients reported driving to and from surgery. Postoperative SANE scores increased as compared with preoperative scores across all patients. The use of combination 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 0.5% bupivacaine was associated with lower intraoperative and postoperative visual analog scale pain scores.

CONCLUSIONS

WALANT hand surgery was generally well tolerated with excellent surgical outcomes. Patients reported ease of preparation for surgery, faster recovery, and lack of anesthetic side effects as the main benefits of wide-awake surgery. Combination use of lidocaine and bupivacaine may be better than lidocaine alone with respect to pain control in the initial recovery period.

Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Decision Making: A Multi-Center Comparative Study

Objective

Investigate the patient opinion on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Orthopaedics.

Methods

397 orthopaedic patients from a large urban academic center and a rural health system completed a 37-component survey querying patient demographics and perspectives on clinical scenarios involving AI. An average comfort score was calculated from thirteen Likert-scale questions (1, not comfortable; 10, very comfortable). Secondary outcomes requested a binary opinion on whether it is acceptable for patient healthcare data to be used to create AI (yes/no) and the impact of AI on: orthopaedic care (positive/negative); healthcare cost (increase/decrease); and their decision to refuse healthcare if cost increased (yes/no). Bivariate and multivariable analyses were employed to identify characteristics that impacted patient perspectives.

Results

The average comfort score across the population was 6.4, with significant bivariate differences between age (p = 0.0086), gender (p = 0.0001), education (p = 0.0029), experience with AI/ML (p < 0.0001), survey format (p < 0.0001), and four binary outcomes (p < 0.05). When controlling for age and education, multivariable regression identified significant relationships between comfort score and experience with AI/ML (p = 0.0018) and each of the four binary outcomes (p < 0.05). In the final multivariable model gender, survey format, perceived impact of AI on orthopaedic care, and the decision to refuse care if it were to increase cost remained significantly associated with the average AI comfort score (p < 0.05). Additionally, patients were not comfortable undergoing surgery entirely by a robot with distant physician supervision compared to close supervision.

Conclusion

The orthopaedic patient appears comfortable with AI joining the care team.

Physical Function and Pain Interference Levels of Hallux Rigidus Patients Before and After Synthetic Cartilage Implant vs Arthrodesis Surgery

BACKGROUND

Hallux rigidus is a common and painful degenerative condition of the great toe limiting a patient's physical function and quality of life. The purpose of this study was to investigate pre- and postoperative physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI) levels of patients undergoing synthetic cartilage implant hemiarthroplasty (SCI) vs arthrodesis (AD) for treatment of hallux rigidus using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).

METHODS

PROMIS PF and PI t scores were analyzed for patients who underwent either SCI or AD. Postoperative final PROMIS t scores were obtained via phone survey. Linear mixed model analysis was used to assess differences in PF and PI at each follow-up point. Final follow-up scores were analyzed using independent sample t tests.

RESULTS

Total 181 (59 SCI, 122 AD) operatively managed patients were included for analysis of PROMIS scores. Final phone survey was performed at a minimum of 14 (mean 33, range, 14-59) months postoperatively, with 101 patients (40 SCI, 61 AD) successfully contacted. The mean final follow-up was significantly different for SCI and AD: 27 vs 38 months, respectively (P < .01). The mean age of the SCI cohort was lower than the AD cohort (57.5 vs 61.5 years old, P = .01). Average PF t scores were higher in the SCI cohort at baseline (47.1 and 43.9, respectively, P = .01) and at final follow-up (51.4 vs 45.9, respectively, P < .01). A main effect of superior improvement in PF was noted in the SCI group (+4.3) vs the AD group (+2) across time intervals (P < .01). PI t scores were similar between the 2 procedures across time points.

CONCLUSION

The SCI cohort reported slightly superior PF t scores preoperatively and at most follow-up time points compared with the arthrodesis group. No differences were found for PI or complication rates between the 2 treatment groups during this study time frame.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Surveys play a vital role in cancer research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of electronic surveys is crucial to improve understanding of the patient experience. However, response rates to electronic surveys are often lower compared with those of paper surveys.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the best approach to improve response rates for an electronic survey administered to patients at a cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We contacted 2750 patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center in the prior 5 years via email to complete a survey regarding their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients randomly assigned to a series of variations of prenotifications (ie, postcard, letter) or incentives (ie, small gift, modest gift card). In total, eight combinations were evaluated. Qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the level of patient understanding and burden with the survey, and quantitative analysis was used to evaluate the response rates between conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 262 (9.5%) patients completed the survey and 9 participated in a qualitative interview. Interviews revealed minimal barriers in understanding or burden, which resulted in minor survey design changes. Compared to sending an email only, sending a postcard or letter prior to the email improved response rates from 3.7% to 9.8%. Similarly, inclusion of an incentive significantly increased the response rate from 5.4% to 16.7%, especially among racial (3.0% to 12.2%) and ethnic (6.4% to 21.0%) minorities, as well as among patients with low socioeconomic status (3.1% to 14.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to promote effective response rates include prenotification postcards or letters as well as monetary incentives. This work can inform future survey development to increase response rates for electronic surveys, particularly among hard-to-reach populations.

Reporting and Analyzing Race and Ethnicity in Orthopaedic Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The distinction between race and ethnicity should be carefully understood and described for demographic data collection. Racial healthcare differences have been observed across many orthopaedic subspecialties. However, the frequency of reporting and analyzing race and ethnicity in orthopaedic clinical trials has not been determined. Therefore, the primary purpose of this systematic review was to determine how frequently race and ethnicity are reported and analyzed in orthopaedic clinical trials.

METHODS

The top 10 journals by impact factor in the field of orthopaedics were manually screened from 2015 to 2019. All randomized controlled trials related to orthopaedics and assessing clinical outcomes were included. Eligible studies were evaluated for bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and for whether the trial reported and analyzed several demographics, including age, sex, height, weight, race, and ethnicity. The frequency of reporting and analyzing by each demographic was accessed. In addition, comparisons of reporting and analyzing race/ethnicity were made based on orthopaedic subspecialty and journal of publication.

RESULTS

A total of 15,488 publications were screened and 482 met inclusion criteria. Of these 482 trials, 460 (95.4%) reported age and 456 (94.6%) reported sex, whereas 35 (7.3%) reported race and 15 (3.1%) reported ethnicity for the randomized groups; 79 studies (16.4%) analyzed age and 72 studies (14.9%) analyzed sex, whereas 6 studies (1.2%) analyzed race and 1 study (0.2%) analyzed ethnicity. The orthopaedic subspecialty of spine was found to report race (23.5%) and ethnicity (17.6%) more frequently than all the other subspecialties, whereas sports medicine reported race and/or ethnicity in only 3 of 150 trials (2.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Race and ethnicity are not frequently reported or analyzed in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials. Social context, personal challenges, and economic challenges should be considered while analyzing the effect of race and ethnicity on outcomes.

Capsular resection versus capsular repair in direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Optimal exposure through the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) conducted on a regular operating theatre table is achieved with a standardized capsular releasing sequence in which the anterior capsule can be preserved or resected. We hypothesized that clinical outcomes and implant positioning would not be different in case a capsular sparing (CS) technique would be compared to capsular resection (CR).

METHODS

In this prospective trial, 219 hips in 190 patients were randomized to either the CS (n = 104) or CR (n = 115) cohort. In the CS cohort, a medial based anterior flap was created and sutured back in place at the end of the procedure. The anterior capsule was resected in the CR cohort. Primary outcome was defined as the difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after one year. PROMs (Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36)) were collected preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Radiological parameters were analyzed to assess implant positioning and implant ingrowth. Adverse events were monitored.

RESULTS

At one year, there was no difference in HSS (p = 0.728), HOOS (Activity Daily Life, p = 0.347; Pain, p = 0.982; Quality of Life, p = 0.653; Sport, p = 0.994; Symptom, p = 0.459), or SF-36 (p = 0.338). Acetabular component inclination (p = 0.276) and anteversion (p = 0.392) as well as femoral component alignment (p = 0.351) were similar in both groups. There were no dislocations, readmissions, or reoperations in either group. The incidence of psoas tendinitis was six cases in the CS cohort (6%) and six cases in the CR cohort (5%) (p = 0.631).

CONCLUSION

No clinical differences were found between resection or preservation of the anterior capsule when performing a primary THA through the DAA on a regular theatre table. In case of limited visibility during the learning curve, it might be advisable to resect a part of the anterior capsule. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):321-328.