Sources of information influencing decision-making in orthopaedic surgery - an international online survey of 1147 orthopaedic surgeons

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Mohit Bhandari³  Prithee Jettoo⁵  Richard Kasch⁴  Anders Jönsson¹  Arndt P Schulz² 

[1] Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden;Department of Musculo-Skeletal Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, Lübeck, 23568, Germany;McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany;Northern Deanery, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

关键词: Internet-based;    Opinion;    Online evaluation;    Evidence-based medicine;    Decision-making process;    Survey;    Orthopaedics;   

Others  :  1133440
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-96

 received in 2012-02-22, accepted in 2013-02-28,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Manufacturers of implants and materials in the field of orthopaedics use significant amounts of funding to produce informational material to influence the decision-making process of orthopaedic surgeons with regards to choice between novel implants and techniques. It remains unclear how far orthopaedic surgeons are really influenced by the materials supplied by companies or whether other, evidence-based publications have a higher impact on their decision-making. The objective was to evaluate the subjective usefulness and usage of different sources of information upon which orthopaedic surgeons base their decisions when acquiring new implants or techniques.

Methods

We undertook an online survey of 1174 orthopaedic surgeons worldwide (of whom n = 305 were head of their department). The questionnaire included 34 items. Sequences were randomized to reduce possible bias. Questions were closed or semi-open with single or multiple answers. The usage and relevance of different sources of information when learning about and selecting orthopaedic treatments were evaluated. Orthopaedic surgeons and trainees were targeted, and were only allowed to respond once over a period of two weeks. Baseline information included country of workplace, level of experience and orthopaedic subspecialisation. The results were statistically evaluated.

Results

Independent scientific proof had the highest influence on decisions for treatment while OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) driven activities like newsletters, white papers or workshops had the least impact. Comparison of answers from the three best-represented countries in this study (Germany, UK and USA) showed some significant differences: Scientific literature and congresses are significantly more important in the US than in the UK or Germany, although they are very important in all countries.

Conclusions

Independent and peer-reviewed sources of information are preferred by surgeons when choosing between methods and implants. Manufacturers of medical devices in orthopaedics employ a considerable workforce to inform or influence hospital managers and leading doctors with marketing activities. Our results indicate that it might be far more effective to channel at least some of these funds into peer-reviewed research projects, thereby assuring significantly higher acceptance of the related products.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Schulz et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 5.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Synthes Audited Full Year 2011 Financial Statements. http://www.synthes.com/sites/intl/InvestorsMedia/FinancialReports/Pages/2009-10.aspx webcite
• [2]Lissy DA: Orthopaedic Product Development: Steps to Success. In OrthoTec. vol. Volume 2. Fairfield, NJ: UBM Canon; 2011.
• [3]Shore BJ, Nasreddine AY, Kocher MS: Overcoming the funding challenge: the cost of randomized controlled trials in the next decade. J Bone Joint Surg 2012, 94(Suppl 1(E)):101-106.
• [4]Bozic KJ, Smith AR, Hariri S, Adeoye S, Gourville J, Maloney WJ, Parsley B, Rubash HE: The impact of direct-to-consumer advertising in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 458:202-219.
• [5]Gelberman RH, Samson D, Mirza SK, Callaghan JJ, Pellegrini VD Jr: Orthopaedic surgeons and the medical device industry: the threat to scientific integrity and the public trust. J Bone Joint Surg 2010, 92(3):765.
• [6]Ranawat A, Nunley R, Bozic K: Executive summary: value-based purchasing and technology assessment in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467(10):2556-2560.
• [7]Borkhoff CM, Hawker GA, Kreder HJ, Glazier RH, Mahomed NN, Wright JG: The effect of patients’ sex on physicians’ recommendations for total knee arthroplasty. CMAJ 2008, 178(6):681-687.
• [8]Bednarska E, Bryant D, Devereaux PJ: Orthopaedic surgeons prefer to participate in expertise-based randomized trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008, 466(7):1734-1744.
• [9]Immerman I, Kubiak EN, Zuckerman JD: Resident work-hour rules: a survey of residents’ and program directors’ opinions and attitudes. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2007, 36(12):E172-E179. discussion E179
• [10]Zlowodzki M, Bhandari M, Keel M, Hanson BP, Schemitsch E: Perception of Garden’s classification for femoral neck fractures: an international survey of 298 orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005, 125(7):503-505.
• [11]Irwin ZN, Hilibrand A, Gustavel M, McLain R, Shaffer W, Myers M, Glaser J, Hart RA: Variation in surgical decision making for degenerative spinal disorders. Part I: lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30(19):2208-2213.
• [12]Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Tornetta P 3rd, Swiontkowski MF, Berry DJ, Haidukewych G, Schemitsch EH, Hanson BP, Koval K, Dirschl D: Operative management of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. An international survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87(9):2122-2130.
• [13]Marx RG, Jones EC, Angel M, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF: Beliefs and attitudes of members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons regarding the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Arthroscopy 2003, 19(7):762-770.
• [14]Sheehan J, Mohamed F, Reilly M, Perry IJ: Secondary prevention following fractured neck of femur: a survey of orthopaedic surgeons practice. Ir Med J 2000, 93(4):105-107.
• [15]Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Shankardass K, Sprague S, Guyatt GH: A randomized trial of opinion leader endorsement in a survey of orthopaedic surgeons: effect on primary response rates. Int J Epidemiol 2003, 32(4):634-636.
• [16]Hanson BP, Bhandari M, Audige L, Helfet D: The need for education in evidence-based orthopedics: an international survey of AO course participants. Acta Orthop Scand 2004, 75(3):328-332.
• [17]Sprague S, Quigley L, Bhandari M: Survey design in orthopaedic surgery: getting surgeons to respond. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(Supplement_3):27-34.
• [18]Grava-Gubins I, Scott S: Effects of various methodologic strategies. Can Fam Physician 2008, 54(10):1424-1430.
• [19]Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL: A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 2000, 60(6):821-836.
• [20]Hing CB, Smith TO, Hooper L, Song F, Donell ST: A review of how to conduct a surgical survey using a questionnaire. Knee 2011, 18(4):209-213.
• [21]Hariri S, York SC, O’Connor MI, Parsley BS, McCarthy JC: A resident survey study of orthopedic fellowship specialty decision making and views on arthroplasty as a career. J Arthroplasty 2011, 26(6):961-968. e961
• [22]Ratliff JK, Lebude B, Albert T, Anene-Maidoh T, Anderson G, Dagostino P, Maltenfort M, Hilibrand A, Sharan A, Vaccaro AR: Complications in spinal surgery: comparative survey of spine surgeons and patients who underwent spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2009, 10(6):578-584.
• [23]Scherl SA, Rathjen KE, Gerardi J, Kiefer G, Georgopoulos G, Murphy-Zane MS, Blasier RD, Schoenecker PL, Epps H: Opinion survey regarding pediatric orthopaedic trauma call and emergency trauma management. J Pediatr Orthop 2008, 28(4):393-396.
• [24]White J, Toy P, Gibbs P, Enneking W, Scarborough M: The current practice of orthopaedic oncology in North America. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468(11):2840-2853.
• [25]Bird S, McGill N: Blood conservation and pain control in scoliosis corrective surgery: an online survey of UK practice. Paediatr Anaesth 2011, 21(1):50-53.
• [26]Purvis JM, Alexander AH, Einhorn TA, Griffin LY: American Orthopaedic Association symposium: Evaluating the flood of orthopaedic media and marketing information. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87(6):1392-1398.
• [27]Harvey JR, Thomas NP: Regional orthopaedic courses–rationale and practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004, 86(6):451-454.
• [28]Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N: Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58(2):107-112.
• [29]LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M: The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2012, 12(1):751. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Halligan A: The NHS White Paper: licence for radical cultural reform of the NHS? J R Soc Med 2011, 104(4):146-148.
• [31]Bogg D: The NHS white paper and GP consortia offer opportunities for positive change. Brighton, England: Mental health today; 2010:21.
• [32]McLellan A: White paper. Conflicting messages from the hint at growing resistance. Health Serv J 2010, 120(6224):3.
• [33]Aitken M: White paper whiteout. J R Soc Med 2010, 103(11):467-468.
• [34]Jargin SV: Limited access to the international medical literature in Russia. Wien Med Wochenschr 2012, 162(11–12):272-275.
• [35]de Granda-Orive JI, Solano-Reina S, Jimenez-Ruiz C: A new example of scientific bias of the English language: the American guide to stopping smoking treatment. Arch Bronconeumol 2010, 46(2):104-105.
• [36]Knobloch K, Yoon U, Vogt PM: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2011, 39(2):91-92.
• [37]Hunter L: Challenging the reported disadvantages of e-questionnaires and addressing methodological issues of online data collection. Nurse Res 2012, 20(1):11-20.
• [38]Mayr A, Gefeller O, Prokosch HU, Pirkl A, Frohlich A, de Zwaan M: Web-based data collection yielded an additional response bias–but had no direct effect on outcome scales. J Clin Epidemiol 2012, 65(9):970-977.
• [39]Shelley AM, Brunton P, Horner K: Questionnaire surveys of dentists on radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012, 41(4):267-275.
• [40]Plante C, Jacques L, Chevalier S, Fournier M: Comparability of Internet and telephone data in a survey on the respiratory health of children. Can Respir J 2012, 19(1):13-18.
• [41]Lippert S, Callaham ML, Lo B: Perceptions of conflict of interest disclosures among peer reviewers. PLoS One 2011, 6(11):e26900.
• [42]Derby DC, Haan A, Wood K: Data quality assurance: an analysis of patient non-response. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2011, 24(3):198-210.