Perceptions of, and willingness to consider, total joint arthroplasty in a population‐based cohort of individuals with disabling hip and knee arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine perceptions of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and how they relate to willingness to consider TJA. METHODS: A population-based survey in Oxford County, Ontario, Canada identified 1,735 subjects > or =55 years with disabling hip or knee arthritis; 435 English-speaking respondents with no prior TJA and not on a TJA waiting list were invited to participate, and 379 (37.1%) agreed. We assessed demographics; comorbidity; evaluated and perceived arthritis severity; perceived risks, benefits, indications for, and knowledge of TJA; preferred decision-making style; self efficacy; and willingness to consider TJA by questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 67.6 years; 33.5% were willing (definitely or probably) to consider TJA as a treatment option. Willingness was independently associated with younger age (odds ratio [OR] <75 versus > or =75 years 2.42, P = 0.01); worse perceived arthritis severity (OR per unit increase 1.30, P < 0.001); perceiving TJA as appropriate for moderate, controlled joint pain (OR 3.29, P = 0.004); walking limited to <1 block (OR 1.99, P = 0.015); the risk of revision as acceptable (OR 3.73, P < 0.001); and friends as an important health information source (OR 2.49, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Participants overestimated the pain and disability needed to warrant TJA. These misperceptions were strongly associated with unwillingness to consider TJA and should be addressed at a population level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".