Differences Between Patients' and Physicians' Evaluations of Outcome After Total Hip Arthroplasty

Published in: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, v. 78, no. 6, June 1996, p. 835-838

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 1996

by Jay R. Lieberman, Frederick Dorey, Paul G. Shekelle, Lana Schumacher, Bert J. Thomas, Douglas J. Kilgus, Gerald A. Finerman

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.ejbjs.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The purpose of this study was to compare patients' and physicians' evaluations of the results of 147 total hip arthroplasties. The patients and physicians independently evaluated pain and over-all satisfaction with the outcome of the procedure using a 10.0-centimeter visual-analog scale. They also answered a questionnaire with which they assessed general health, functional ability, and pain. The mean (and standard deviation) analog rating for pain (with 0.0 centimeters indicating no pain and 10.0 centimeters, severe pain) was 1.7 +/- 2.6 centimeters as assessed by the patients and 1.1 +/- 1.8 centimeters as assessed by the physicians (p < 0.001, paired t test). The mean analog rating for over-all satisfaction (with 0.0 centimeters indicating poor and 10.0 centimeters, excellent) was 8.6 +/- 2.1 centimeters as assessed by the patients and 8.8 +/- 1.7 centimeters as assessed by the physicians (p = 0.07, paired t test). There was a marked disparity between the patients' and the physicians' scores when the patients assigned a low score to a particular area. For the thirty patients who rated the pain as more than 4.0 centimeters, the mean analog rating was 6.8 +/- 2.1 centimeters according to the patients, while it was 3.6 +/- 2.7 centimeters according to the physicians (p < 0.001, linear regression). The mean analog rating for over-all satisfaction according to the nineteen patients who rated this parameter as less than 7.0 centimeters was 3.8 +/- 2.0 centimeters, while the mean rating according to the physicians 6.5 +/- 2.8 centimeters (p < 0.001, linear regression). The patients' and physicians' evaluations were similar regarding the results of the total hip arthroplasty when the patients had little or no pain and were satisfied with the result. However, the disparity increased as the patients' ratings for pain increased and their ratings for over-all satisfaction decreased. This study highlights a discrepancy between patients' and physicians' evaluations of the results of total hip arthroplasty. This discrepancy increased when the patient was not satisfied with the outcome. The use of patients' self-administered questionnaires as well as traditional physician-generated assessments may provide a more complete evaluation of the results of total hip arthroplasty.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.