患者对 LC1 骨盆骨折手术治疗与非手术治疗的偏好:离散选择实验。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1097/BOT.0000000000002794
Joseph T Patterson, Joshua A Parry, Zachary M Working, Natasha A McKibben, Joseph Baca, Andrew Duong, Joshua Senior, Annabel Kim, Lucas S Marchand, Nathan O'Hara
{"title":"患者对 LC1 骨盆骨折手术治疗与非手术治疗的偏好:离散选择实验。","authors":"Joseph T Patterson, Joshua A Parry, Zachary M Working, Natasha A McKibben, Joseph Baca, Andrew Duong, Joshua Senior, Annabel Kim, Lucas S Marchand, Nathan O'Hara","doi":"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To quantify how patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvis fracture value attributes of operative versus nonoperative treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong></p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Discrete choice experiment.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three US Level 1 trauma centers.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Adult survivors of an LC1 pelvis treated between June 2016 and March 2023 were identified from institutional registries. The choice experiment was administered as a survey from March through August 2023.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and comparisons: </strong>Participants chose between 12 hypothetical comparisons of treatment attributes including operative or nonoperative care, risk of death, severity of pain, risk of secondary surgery, shorter hospital stay, discharge destination, and independence in ambulation within 1 month of injury. The marginal utility of each treatment attribute, for example, the strength of participants' aggregate preference for an attribute as indicated by their survey choices, was estimated by multinomial logit modeling with and without stratification by treatment received.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred forty-nine eligible patients were identified. The survey was distributed to 182 patients and collected from 72 patients (39%) at a median 2.3 years after injury. Respondents were 66% female with a median age of 59 years (IQR, 34-69 years). Before injury, 94% ambulated independently and 75% were working; 41% received operative treatment. Independence with ambulation provided the highest relative marginal utility (21%, P < 0.001), followed by discharge to home versus skilled nursing (20%, P < 0.001), moderate versus severe postdischarge pain (17%, P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (16%, P < 0.001), secondary surgery (15%, P < 0.001), and mortality (10%, P = 0.02). Overall, no relative utility for operative versus nonoperative treatment was observed (2%, P = 0.54). However, respondents strongly preferred the treatment they received: operative patients valued operative treatment (utility, 0.37 vs. -0.37, P < 0.001); nonoperative patients valued nonoperative treatment (utility, 0.19 vs. -0.19, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LC1 pelvis fracture patients valued independence with ambulation, shorter hospital stay, and avoiding secondary surgery and mortality in the month after their injury. Patients preferred the treatment they received rather than operative versus nonoperative care.</p>","PeriodicalId":16644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","volume":" ","pages":"291-298"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Preferences for Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of LC1 Pelvis Fracture: A Discrete Choice Experiment.\",\"authors\":\"Joseph T Patterson, Joshua A Parry, Zachary M Working, Natasha A McKibben, Joseph Baca, Andrew Duong, Joshua Senior, Annabel Kim, Lucas S Marchand, Nathan O'Hara\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002794\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To quantify how patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvis fracture value attributes of operative versus nonoperative treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong></p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Discrete choice experiment.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three US Level 1 trauma centers.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Adult survivors of an LC1 pelvis treated between June 2016 and March 2023 were identified from institutional registries. The choice experiment was administered as a survey from March through August 2023.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and comparisons: </strong>Participants chose between 12 hypothetical comparisons of treatment attributes including operative or nonoperative care, risk of death, severity of pain, risk of secondary surgery, shorter hospital stay, discharge destination, and independence in ambulation within 1 month of injury. The marginal utility of each treatment attribute, for example, the strength of participants' aggregate preference for an attribute as indicated by their survey choices, was estimated by multinomial logit modeling with and without stratification by treatment received.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred forty-nine eligible patients were identified. The survey was distributed to 182 patients and collected from 72 patients (39%) at a median 2.3 years after injury. Respondents were 66% female with a median age of 59 years (IQR, 34-69 years). Before injury, 94% ambulated independently and 75% were working; 41% received operative treatment. Independence with ambulation provided the highest relative marginal utility (21%, P < 0.001), followed by discharge to home versus skilled nursing (20%, P < 0.001), moderate versus severe postdischarge pain (17%, P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (16%, P < 0.001), secondary surgery (15%, P < 0.001), and mortality (10%, P = 0.02). Overall, no relative utility for operative versus nonoperative treatment was observed (2%, P = 0.54). However, respondents strongly preferred the treatment they received: operative patients valued operative treatment (utility, 0.37 vs. -0.37, P < 0.001); nonoperative patients valued nonoperative treatment (utility, 0.19 vs. -0.19, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LC1 pelvis fracture patients valued independence with ambulation, shorter hospital stay, and avoiding secondary surgery and mortality in the month after their injury. Patients preferred the treatment they received rather than operative versus nonoperative care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"291-298\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002794\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002794","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:量化 LC1 骨盆骨折患者对手术治疗和非手术治疗属性的评价:量化 LC1 骨盆骨折患者对手术治疗与非手术治疗属性的评价:设计:离散选择实验:设计:离散选择实验:3 个美国 1 级创伤中心.患者选择标准:患者选择标准:2016 年 6 月至 2023 年 3 月期间接受过 LC1 骨盆治疗的成年幸存者均从机构登记册中确认。选择实验从 2023 年 3 月到 8 月以调查的形式进行:参与者在 12 项治疗属性的假设比较中进行选择,包括手术或非手术治疗、死亡风险、疼痛严重程度、二次手术风险、住院时间缩短、出院目的地以及受伤后一个月内的独立行走能力。每个治疗属性的边际效用,即调查选择所显示的参与者对某一属性的总体偏好程度,通过多项式对数模型进行估算,包括按接受的治疗分层和不按接受的治疗分层:确定了 449 名符合条件的患者。向 182 名患者发放了调查问卷,并从 72 名患者(39%)中收集了问卷,中位数为伤后 2.3 年。受访者中 66% 为女性,中位年龄为 59 岁(IQR 34-69)。受伤前,94% 的人可以独立行走,75% 的人有工作。41%的人接受了手术治疗。独立行走提供了最高的相对边际效用(21%,p 结论:LC1 骨盆骨折患者重视受伤后一个月内的独立行走、缩短住院时间、避免二次手术和死亡率。患者更喜欢他们所接受的治疗,而不是手术与非手术治疗:证据级别:治疗级别 III。有关证据等级的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Patient Preferences for Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of LC1 Pelvis Fracture: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Objectives: To quantify how patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvis fracture value attributes of operative versus nonoperative treatment.

Methods:

Design: Discrete choice experiment.

Setting: Three US Level 1 trauma centers.

Patient selection criteria: Adult survivors of an LC1 pelvis treated between June 2016 and March 2023 were identified from institutional registries. The choice experiment was administered as a survey from March through August 2023.

Outcome measures and comparisons: Participants chose between 12 hypothetical comparisons of treatment attributes including operative or nonoperative care, risk of death, severity of pain, risk of secondary surgery, shorter hospital stay, discharge destination, and independence in ambulation within 1 month of injury. The marginal utility of each treatment attribute, for example, the strength of participants' aggregate preference for an attribute as indicated by their survey choices, was estimated by multinomial logit modeling with and without stratification by treatment received.

Results: Four hundred forty-nine eligible patients were identified. The survey was distributed to 182 patients and collected from 72 patients (39%) at a median 2.3 years after injury. Respondents were 66% female with a median age of 59 years (IQR, 34-69 years). Before injury, 94% ambulated independently and 75% were working; 41% received operative treatment. Independence with ambulation provided the highest relative marginal utility (21%, P < 0.001), followed by discharge to home versus skilled nursing (20%, P < 0.001), moderate versus severe postdischarge pain (17%, P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (16%, P < 0.001), secondary surgery (15%, P < 0.001), and mortality (10%, P = 0.02). Overall, no relative utility for operative versus nonoperative treatment was observed (2%, P = 0.54). However, respondents strongly preferred the treatment they received: operative patients valued operative treatment (utility, 0.37 vs. -0.37, P < 0.001); nonoperative patients valued nonoperative treatment (utility, 0.19 vs. -0.19, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: LC1 pelvis fracture patients valued independence with ambulation, shorter hospital stay, and avoiding secondary surgery and mortality in the month after their injury. Patients preferred the treatment they received rather than operative versus nonoperative care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and management of hard and soft tissue trauma, including injuries to bone, muscle, ligament, and tendons, as well as spinal cord injuries. Under the guidance of a distinguished international board of editors, the journal provides the most current information on diagnostic techniques, new and improved surgical instruments and procedures, surgical implants and prosthetic devices, bioplastics and biometals; and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
The Effects of a Stepped-Care Mental Health Program on Trauma Recidivism at a Level 1 Trauma Center. Tibial Malalignment is an Independent Predictor of Nonunion After Intramedullary Nailing of Tibial Shaft Fractures. Are Drains Associated With Infection After Operative Fixation of High-Risk Tibial Plateau and Pilon Fractures? The Use Of External Beam Radiation Therapy For Heterotopic Ossification Prophylaxis After Surgical Fixation Of Acetabular Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial. A Retrospective Study of Ballistic Pelvic Fractures With Focus on Short-Term Clinical Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1