Factors associated with the quality of patients' surgical decisions for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making requires informing patients and ensuring that treatment decisions reflect their goals. It is not clear to what extent this happens for patients considering total joint replacement (TJR) for hip or knee osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey of osteoarthritis patients at 4 sites, who made a decision about TJR. The survey measured knowledge and goals, the decision making process, decision confidence, and decision regret. Decision quality was defined as the percentage of patients who had high knowledge scores and received treatments that matched their goals. Multivariable regression models examined factors associated with knowledge and decision quality.

RESULTS

There were 382 patients who participated (78.6% response rate). Mean knowledge score was 61% (SD 20.7%). In multivariate linear regression, higher education, having TJR, and site were associated with higher knowledge. Many patients (73%) received treatments that matched their goals. Thirty-one percent of patients met our definition for high decision quality. Higher decision making process scores, higher quality of life scores, and site were associated with higher decision quality. Patients who had high decision quality had less regret (73.1% vs 58.5%, p = 0.007) and greater confidence (9.0 [SD 1.6] vs 8.2 [SD 2.3] out of 10, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A third of patients who recently made a decision about osteoarthritis treatment met both criteria for a high quality decision. Controlling for treatment, patients reporting more involvement in the decision making process, higher quality of life, and being seen at a site that uses decision aids were associated with higher decision quality.

Decision quality instrument for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a psychometric evaluation

BACKGROUND

A high quality decision requires that patients who meet clinical criteria for surgery are informed about the options (including non-surgical alternatives) and receive treatments that match their goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical sensibility of a patient self report instrument, to measure the quality of decisions about total joint replacement for knee or hip osteoarthritis.

METHODS

The performance of the Hip/Knee Osteoarthritis Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI) was evaluated in two samples: (1) a cross-sectional mail survey with 489 patients and 77 providers (study 1); and (2) a randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid with 138 osteoarthritis patients considering total joint replacement (study 2). The HK-DQI results in two scores. Knowledge items are summed to create a total knowledge score, and a set of goals and concerns are used in a logistic regression model to develop a concordance score. The concordance score measures the proportion of patients whose treatment matched their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of the knowledge and concordance scores were examined.

RESULTS

In study 1, the HK-DQI was completed by 382 patients (79%) and 45 providers (58%), and in study 2 by 127 patients (92%), with low rates of missing data. The DQI-knowledge score was reproducible (ICC = 0.81) and demonstrated discriminant validity (68% decision aid vs. 54% control, and 78% providers vs. 61% patients) and content validity. The concordance score demonstrated predictive validity, as patients whose treatments were concordant with their goals had more confidence and less regret with their decision compared to those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The HK-DQI is feasible and acceptable to patients. It can be used to assess whether patients with osteoarthritis are making informed decisions about surgery that are concordant with their goals.