"Take me seriously and do something!" - a qualitative study exploring patients' perceptions and expectations of an upcoming orthopaedic consultation

Can We Enhance Shared Decision-making for Periacetabular Osteotomy Surgery? A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences

BACKGROUND

Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) surgery presents an opportunity for shared decision-making (SDM) and may be facilitated by decision-making tools. Currently, no diagnosis or treatment-specific decision-making tools exist for this patient population. Understanding patient PAO surgery decision-making experiences and processes would enable development of a treatment-specific decision-making tool and would help hip preservation surgeons with SDM practices.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Qualitative methodology was used to address the following questions: (1) What were the information support needs of adult patients with hip dysplasia who decided to have PAO? (2) What was important to adult patients with hip dysplasia who decided to have PAO? (3) How did adult patients with hip dysplasia who have undergone PAO experience the surgical decision-making process? (4) What elements of SDM did adult patients with hip dysplasia experience with their surgeons when deciding to have PAO?

METHODS

Fifteen volunteer, English-speaking patients in the United States who had been diagnosed with hip dysplasia and who had undergone PAO surgery 6 to 12 months prior to the study were recruited through five PAO surgery Facebook support groups. Individuals were excluded if they had an underlying neuromuscular condition or other diagnosis related to nondevelopmental dysplasia of the hip or if they had a previous PAO surgery > 12 months before data collection. We used purposive sampling strategies to promote sample heterogeneity based on age and preoperative activity level, as these are characteristics that may impact decision-making. Participants were categorized into three age groups: 20 to 29 years, 30 to 39 years, and ≥ 40 years. Participants were also categorized as having "low activity," "moderate activity," or "high activity" preoperatively based on self-reported University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale scores. Participants were enrolled consecutively if they met the inclusion criteria and fulfilled one of our sampling categories; we had plans to enroll more participants if thematic saturation was not achieved through the first 15 interviews. Participants included 14 women and one man ranging in age from 23 to 48 years, and all had undergone PAO surgery for hip dysplasia 6 to 12 months prior to the interview. One-on-one semistructured interviews were conducted with each participant by a single interviewer through Zoom video conferencing using video and audio recording. Participants answered semistructured interview questions and provided verbal responses to survey questions so researchers could gain demographic information and details about their symptoms, diagnosis, and PAO surgery between June 2021 and August 2021. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed by three researchers using principles of reflexive thematic analysis. Candidate themes were iteratively defined and redefined until central themes were developed that were distinctly different, yet centrally relevant, and answered the research questions. All codes that informed category and theme development were generated within the first six transcripts that were analyzed. The team felt that thematic saturation was established with the 15 interviews.

RESULTS

The main information needs for adult patients with hip dysplasia included diagnosis and treatment-related information, as well as logistics related to surgery and recovery. Many patients described that their information needs were only partially met by their surgeon; most engaged in additional information-seeking from scientific research and online resources and relied on patient peers to meet information needs about the lived experience and logistics related to surgery and recovery. It was important to patients that PAO surgery could preserve their native hip or delay THA and that PAO surgery was likely to reduce their pain and improve function; decision-making was facilitated when patients were able to identify how the indications and goals of PAO surgery aligned with their own situation and goals for surgery. Patients' experiences with decision-making were more positive when information needs were met, when indications and goals for PAO surgery aligned with their personal values and goals, and when their preferred and actual decision-making roles aligned. Adult patients with hip dysplasia described high variability in the extent to which patients were invited to share personal preferences, values, and goals around PAO surgery and the extent to which preferred patient decision-making roles were assessed.

CONCLUSION

We found that elements of SDM are not consistently integrated into hip preservation practice. The knowledge gained through this work about patient PAO surgery information needs, what matters to patients when deciding to have surgery, and their experiences with PAO surgery decision-making can inform future PAO surgery decision-making tool development. Future studies are needed to validate the findings of this study and to determine whether they are generalizable to adult patients with hip dysplasia with different demographic characteristics or to patients who do not participate in social media support groups.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons should recognize that patients are likely to leave their office without their information needs being met. SDM strategies can promote more effective information exchanges in the clinic so surgeons can help patients identify their information needs, provide education and direction to accurate and reputable resources to meet those needs, and help patients appraise information they gather and apply it to their personal situation. Hip preservation surgeons can use the sample SDM script and checklist offered here to support adult patients with hip dysplasia who are making PAO surgery decisions until a future diagnosis and treatment-specific decision-making tool is available.

Virtual Reality and Surgical Simulation Training for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: A Qualitative Assessment of Trainee Perspectives

Background

The demonstrated benefits of virtual reality (VR) in orthopaedic surgical training are numerous. However, it is relatively unknown how best to implement VR into an already established orthopaedic resident education curriculum and how trainees will engage and use these technologies longitudinally.

Methods

This was an exploratory, qualitative research study performed in accordance with Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Orthopaedic surgery residents at a single institution were recruited during the 2022 to 2023 academic year. Semistructured interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed through grounded theory methodology, beginning with open coding, followed by axial coding, and concluding with selective coding that describes orthopaedic surgery residents' current perceptions of VR as a training tool.

Results

Six residents participated in interviews before thematic saturation was achieved. Average interview length was 13:27 (±2:59) minutes. Residents felt that currently, VR is most useful for interns and junior residents as an educational adjunct for learning anatomy, surgical exposures, and the steps of a procedure in a risk- and judgment-free arena. There seems to be a "ceiling effect" with VR given current technological limitations, and residents remarked that there is an associated "opportunity cost" with using VR technology. Some residents may find it more time-efficient to study texts, videos, or surgical guides rather than use VR. Cost (limited number of headsets) and technological barriers (i.e., hardware, software, and Wi-Fi issues) were some of the described barriers to VR utilization. Residents felt that there needs to be dedicated technological support to help with these issues. At this time, given these limitations of VR, many preferred VR as an optional educational adjunct rather than as a required curricular tool or assessment of surgical competency.

Conclusions

There is current utility for VR in orthopaedic surgical training. Future technological advances may make VR more central to resident education. This study describes resident perceptions about the technology and best use practices for the technology.

Level of Evidence

Qualitative Study, Level V Evidence.

Operative treatment in non-emergency sports injuries: a sports medicine clinic experience

PURPOSE

To elucidate referrals from sports medicine clinic (SMC) to orthopedics, consensus rates among physicians and surgeons on surgical need in these patients, and reasoning of the patients who refused to have surgery despite the recommendations by both groups in non-emergency sports injury patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis by using the administrative and referral records of a sports medicine clinic for the 15 months between October 2017 and January 2019. Gender, age, diagnosis, and type of sport were compared between two groups (patients referred to orthopedics vs patients treated in SMC). Agreement between orthopedics and SMC on surgical need in those patients who were referred to orthopedics was evaluated. We additionally screened the hospital archive for surgery reports of patients recommended surgery, and, if a patient did not have a surgery record, we investigated the reasons by telephone interview and categorized these reasons.

RESULTS

Surgical evaluation needed for 4.7% (n = 155) of the patients. Patients referred to orthopedics were younger (median: 22.0 years), mostly male (n = 119, 76.8%), and involved in contact sports (n = 108, 69.7%) (p < 0.001 for all) compared to patients treated conservatively. Majority of the consultations were made owing to certain diagnoses such as cruciate/collateral ligament sprain (n = 70, 45.2%), meniscal tear (n = 21, 13.5%), and cartilage injuries (n = 15, 9.7%). Most of the patients diagnosed with Achilles tendon rupture (n = 2, 100%) and patellar instability (n = 13, 81.3%) were referred to surgery. Orthopedics agreed with the sports medicine physicians' opinions in most cases (n = 110, 71.0%). Thirty-four patients (30.9%) recommended surgery by the surgeon postponed/refused the treatment for various reasons or had surgery in another hospital.

CONCLUSION

Most non-emergency sports injuries can be treated conservatively. Young and male patients participating in contact sports are more likely to need surgical treatment. Non-surgeon musculoskeletal health-care providers may consider referring patients to orthopedics considering the data demonstrated in this study. Nevertheless, patient's motivation to undergo an operation should be considered before referring to orthopedics.

No major difference in perceived quality of care in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis assessed in a physical therapy-led triage compared with standard care: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy-led orthopedic triage is a care model used to optimize pathways for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. However, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of this model of care is still limited and only a few studies report patients' perception of it. The aim of this study was to compare patients' perceived quality of care after physical therapy-led triage with standard practice in a secondary care setting for patients with primary hip or knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

In this randomized study, patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis referred for an orthopedic consultation received either physical therapy-led triage (n = 344) or a standard care assessment by an orthopedic surgeon (n = 294). To evaluate the patients' perceived quality of care, a short version of the Quality from the Patient's Perspective (QPP) questionnaire was sent to the patients within a week after their assessment. The primary outcome was the statement "I received the best examination and treatment" on QPP.

RESULTS

A total of 348 patients (70%, physical therapy-led triage: n = 249, standard care: n = 199) answered the questionnaire. No significant difference was found in the primary outcome between the groups (p = 0.6). Participants in the triage group perceived themselves to have received significantly better information about how to take care of their osteoarthritis (p = 0.017) compared with the standard care group. The standard care group reported that they participated in the decision-making process to a greater extent (p = 0.005), that their expectations were met to a greater degree (p = 0.013), and that their care depended more on their need for care rather than the caregivers' routines (0.007).

CONCLUSION

Both groups report high perceived quality of care. Significant differences were found in four of 14 questions, one in favor of the physical therapist and three in favor of the standard care group. The findings of this study are in line with previous research and support the use of this care model for patients with hip or knee OA in secondary care. However, due to the dropout size, the results should be interpreted with caution.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT04665908, registered 14/12/2020.

Patients' perspectives on the benefits of feedback on patient-reported outcome measures in a web-based personalized decision report for hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Applications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for individual patient management are expanding with the support of digital tools. Providing PROM-based information to patients can potentially improve care experiences and outcomes through informing and activating patients. This study explored patients' perspectives on the benefits of receiving feedback on PROMs in the context of a web-based personalized decision report to guide care for their hip or knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive interview study was nested in a pragmatic clinical trial of a personalized report, which includes descriptive PROM scores and predicted postoperative PROM scores. Patients completed a semi-structured interview within 6 weeks of an office visit with an orthopaedic surgeon. Only patients who reported receiving the report and reviewing it with the surgeon and/or a health educator were included. Data were iteratively analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive coding strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients aged 49-82 years (60% female, 72% surgical treatment decision) participated and described three primary benefits of the PROM feedback within the report: 1. Gaining Information About My Health Status, including data teaching new information, confirming what was known, or providing a frame of reference; 2. Fostering Communication Between Patient and Surgeon, encompassing use of the data to set expectations, ask and answer questions, and facilitate shared understanding; and 3. Increasing My Confidence and Trust, relating to the treatment outcomes, treatment decision, and surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients identified actual and hypothetical benefits of receiving feedback on PROM scores in the context of a web-based decision report, including advantages for those who had already made a treatment decision before seeing the surgeon. Findings provide insight into patients' perspectives on how digital PROM data can promote patient-centered care. Results should be considered in the context of the homogeneous sample and complex trial. While participants perceived value in this personalized report, questions remain regarding best practices in patient-facing data presentation and engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03102580. Registered on 5 April 2017.

A qualitative study with orthopaedic surgeons on pain catastrophizing and surgical outcomes: shifting from a medical towards a biopsychosocial model of surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain catastrophizing (PC) moderates surgical outcomes and behavioural interventions are recommended to optimise post-operative results. Less is known about surgeons' experiences of providing care and their attitudes towards the use of interventions in practice.

OBJECTIVE

It is therefore invaluable to understand surgeons' views on how best to support patients who may be at risk of suboptimal recovery. Eleven surgeons and three registrar orthopaedic practitioners took part in semi-structured interviews within a hospital setting. The surgical decision-making process, views of PC and the use of behavioural interventions in surgical practice were explored.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified five themes: pain expressions and pain behaviours affect the surgeons' decision-making process, when pathologies and symptoms do not match, psychological factors pertaining to unsatisfactory outcomes, a service gap in surgical care and the acceptability of using a screening tool in surgical practice to identify patients at risk of suboptimal recovery.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic surgeons face challenges in identifying who is likely to reach optimal versus suboptimal outcome. Surgeons are becoming increasingly aware of patient psychological distress being detrimental to outcomes, and they support the use of behavioural interventions to optimise post-operative outcomes or stop unnecessary treatments. The surgeons accept the use of a screening tool in surgical practice with better access to support services with input from allied health professionals. A screening tool may provide great utility for identifying at risk patients, to allow for modification of surgical patients care plans.

COVID-19-related cancellation of elective orthopaedic surgery caused increased pain and psychosocial distress levels

PURPOSE

Health care systems in most European countries were temporarily restructured to provide as much capacity as possible for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Subsequently, all elective surgeries had to be cancelled and postponed for months. The aim of the present study was to assess the pretreatment health status before and after COVID-19-related cancellation and the psychosocial distress caused by the cancellation.

METHODS

For this study, a questionnaire was developed collecting sociodemographic data and information on health status before and after the cancellation. To assess psychosocial distress, the validated depression module of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), was implemented. PHQ-9-Scores of 10 and above were considered to indicate moderate or severe depressive symptoms. In total, 119 patients whose elective orthopaedic surgery was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic were surveyed once at least 8 weeks after the cancellation.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients (65%; 34 female, 43 male) completed the questionnaire and were included. The predominant procedures were total knee arthroplasty (TKA), hip arthroscopy and foot and ankle surgery. The mean pain level significantly increased from 5.5 ± 2.2 at the time of the initially scheduled surgery to 6.2 ± 2.5 at the time of the survey (p < 0.0001). The pain level before cancellation of the surgery was significantly higher in female patients (p = 0.029). An increased analgetic consumption was identified in 46% of all patients. A mean PHQ-9 score of 6.1 ± 4.9 was found after cancellation. PHQ-9 scores of 10 or above were found in 14% of patients, and 8% exhibited scores of 15 points or above. Significantly higher PHQ-9 scores were seen in female patients (p = 0.046). No significant differences in PHQ-9 scores were found among age groups, procedures or reasons for cancellation.

CONCLUSION

Cancellation of elective orthopaedic surgery resulted in pain levels that were significantly higher than when the surgery was scheduled, leading to increased analgesic use. Additionally, significant psychosocial distress due to the cancellation was identified in some patients, particularly middle-aged women. Despite these results, confidence in the national health care system and in the treating orthopaedic surgeons was not affected.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Perception of integrative care in paediatric oncology-perspectives of parents and patients

PURPOSE

For some years now, a programme for the use of integrative care in paediatric oncology has been established in a German university hospital and offers patients and parents complementary treatment options. According to their medical condition and wishes. A variety of external applications such as medical wraps, warm oil compresses and rhythmic embrocations are offered. This article analyses how patients and parents perceived and experienced the integrative care program.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, data consists of field notes conducted through participant observation, informal conversations and interviews with parents (n = 25) during the implementation phase of the program. Data was analysed on basis of thematic analysis and organized with the analysis software MAXQDA.

RESULTS

Parents and families intuitively developed strategies for dealing with crisis situations such as childhood cancer. In addition, many of the families brought with them a wealth of experience in complementary medicine. Parents perceived the integrative care treatments as soothing, relaxing and pain-relieving for their child. Patients could relax and side effects of chemotherapy were alleviated. However, children, who undergoing chemotherapy were not always open for physical touch and thus sometimes also rejected the treatments sometimes.

CONCLUSION

The analysed integrative care programme is perceived as a strong patient and family-centred approach of support during the oncological paediatric treatment. From a salutogenetic viewpoint, this program aims to strengthen the dimension of manageability within the concept of sense of coherence. Parents are given supportive means to manage side effects and ease their child's suffering, through touch and attention that can be very beneficial.

Exploring patient satisfaction after operative and nonoperative treatment for midshaft clavicle fractures: a focus group analysis

Background

There is no consensus on the optimal treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Several studies indicate superior patient satisfaction in favour of operative reconstruction. It is unknown what drives superior satisfaction in this treatment group. The aim of this study was to explore patient satisfaction and identify contributors to patient satisfaction after operative and nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults using a focus group approach.

Methods

Four face-to-face and two web-based focus groups were hosted. A total of 24 participants who were treated nonoperatively (n = 14) or operatively (n = 10) agreed to participate. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, ensuring variation in gender, age, treatment complications and outcomes. A question script was developed to systematically explore patient expectations, attitudes and satisfaction with different dimensions of care. All focus groups were voice-recorded and transcribed at verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted on all face-to-face and web-based transcripts.

Results

The main emerging themes across treatment groups were; need for more information, functional recovery, speed of recovery and patient-doctor interaction. There was no difference in themes observed between operative and nonoperative focus groups. The lack of information was the most important complaint in dissatisfied patients.

Conclusion

Our study shows that informing patients about their injury, treatment options and expectations for recovery is paramount for overall patient satisfaction after treatment for a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture.

Level of evidence

Level III, focus group study.

Preparing for an orthopedic consultation using an eHealth tool: a randomized controlled trial in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effect of a stand-alone mobile and web-based educational intervention (eHealth tool) compared to usual preparation of a first orthopedic consultation of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) on patients' satisfaction.

METHODS

A two-armed randomized controlled trial involving 286 patients with (suspicion of) hip or knee OA, randomly allocated to either receiving an educational eHealth tool to prepare their upcoming consultation (n = 144) or usual care (n = 142). Satisfaction with the consultation on three subscales (range 1-4) of the Consumer Quality Index (CQI - primary outcome) and knowledge (assessed using 22 statements on OA, range 0-22), treatment beliefs (assessed by the Treatment beliefs in OsteoArthritis questionnaire, range 1-5), assessment of patient's involvement in consultation by the surgeon (assessed on a 5-point Likert scale) and patient satisfaction with the outcome of the consultation (numeric rating scale), were assessed.

RESULTS

No differences between groups were observed on the 3 subscales of the CQI (group difference (95% CI): communication 0.009 (- 0.10, 0.12), conduct - 0.02 (- 0.12, 0.07) and information provision 0.02 (- 0.18, 0.21)). Between group differences (95% CI) were in favor of the intervention group for knowledge (1.4 (0.6, 2.2)), negative beliefs regarding physical activities (- 0.19 (- 0.37, - 0.002) and pain medication (- 0.30 (- 0.49, - 0.01)). We found no differences on other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

An educational eHealth tool to prepare a first orthopedic consultation for hip or knee OA does not result in higher patient satisfaction with the consultation, but it does influence cognitions about osteoarthritis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register (trial number NTR6262). Registered 30 January 2017.

An Electronic Health Tool to Prepare for the First Orthopedic Consultation: Use and Usability Study

Background

The use of electronic health (eHealth) technology to prepare patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) for their first orthopedic consultation seems promising. Exploration of the use and usability of an educational eHealth tool may highlight potential modifications that could increase patient engagement and effectiveness.

Objective

This study aimed to (1) identify the use and usability of a stand-alone educational eHealth tool for patients with suspected hip or knee OA, (2) explore whether the recorded questions in the eHealth tool were in line with an existing widely used question prompt list, and (3) investigate whether user characteristics are related to use and usability.

Methods

We used data from 144 participants in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial, who were asked to use the educational eHealth tool to prepare for their upcoming first orthopedic consultation. We defined users and nonusers based on whether they had opened the tool at least once. Users were characterized as active or superficial depending on the extent of their use of the tool. The recorded questions for the consultation preparation were categorized into themes fitting 3 predefined questions or in a remaining category. Usability was measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS, 0-100). Data were collected including the patient demographic and clinical characteristics, knowledge of OA, and internet and smartphone usage in daily life. The characteristics associated with users and nonusers were analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 116/144 (80.6%) participants used the educational eHealth tool, of whom 87/116 (75.0%) were active users. Of the three components of the tool (information, my consultation, and medication), medication was the least used (34%). On the basis of recorded questions of the users, the fourth predefined question could be proposed. The mean (SD) SUS score was 64.8 (16.0). No difference was found between the SUS scores of superficial and active users (mean difference 0.04, 95% CI −7.69 to 7.77). Participants with a higher baseline knowledge of OA (odds ratio [OR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.4) and who used the internet less frequently in their daily life (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) were more likely to use the educational eHealth tool. We found no differences between the demographics and clinical characteristics of the superficial and active users.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the use of an educational eHealth tool to prepare patients with hip and knee OA for the first orthopedic consultation is feasible. Our results suggest some improvements that should be made to the content of the tool to improve its usability. No clear practical implications were found to support the implementation of the educational eHealth tool in specific subgroups.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR6262; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6262

Physiotherapist as primary assessor for patients with suspected knee osteoarthritis in primary care-a randomised controlled pragmatic study

Background

In Swedish primary care, the healthcare process for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) can be initiated by a physician or physiotherapist assessment. However, it is unclear how the different assessments affect the healthcare processes and patient reported outcomes over time. The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in health-related quality of life (HrQoL), adjusted for pain and physical function, for patients with KOA when the healthcare process is initiated by a physiotherapist assessment compared to a physician assessment in primary care.

Methods

An assessor-blinded randomised controlled pragmatic trial. Using a computer-generated list of random numbers, patients seeking primary care during 2013–2017 with suspected KOA were randomised to either a physiotherapist or physician for primary assessment and treatment. Data was collected before randomisation and at 3, 6, and 12-month follow-ups. Primary outcome was HrQoL using EuroQol 5 dimensions 3 levels questionnaire, index (EQ-5D-3L index) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) (EQ-5D-3L VAS); pain intensity was measured with VAS (0–100) and physical function measured with the 30-s chair stand test. Mixed effect model analyses compared repeated measures of HrQoL between groups. The significance level was p < 0.05 and data was applied with intention-to-treat.

Results

Patients were randomised to either a physiotherapist (n = 35) or physician (n = 34) for primary assessment. All 69 patients were included in the analyses. There were no significant differences in HrQoL for patients assessed by a physiotherapist or a physician as primary assessor (EQ-5D-3L index, p = 0.18; EQ-5D-3L VAS, p = 0.49). We found that HrQoL changed significantly 12 months after baseline assessment for all patients regardless of assessor (EQ-5D-3L index, p < 0.001; EQ-5D-3 L VAS, p = 0.0049). No adverse events or side effects were reported.

Conclusions

There were no differences in HrQoL, when adjusted for pain and physical function, for patients with KOA when the healthcare process was initiated with physiotherapist assessment compared to physician assessment in primary care. Both assessments resulted in significantly higher HrQoL at the 12-month follow-up. The results imply that physiotherapists and physicians in primary care are equally qualified as primary assessors.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered at http://clinicaltrial.gov, ID: NCT03715764.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-019-2690-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.