Influence of Patients' Gender on Informed Decision Making Regarding Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of patient gender on patient-physician communication in the process of recommendation for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Seventy-one physicians (38 family physicians and 33 orthopedic surgeons) in Ontario performed blinded assessments of 2 standardized patients (1 man and 1 woman) with moderate knee osteoarthritis and otherwise identical scenarios. Four surgeons did not consent to including their data. Standardized patients and accompanying mock family members recorded elements of informed decision making (IDM) as present/absent in the patient-physician discussion and rated the physicians' interpersonal skills. RESULTS: Overall, the completeness of IDM was low, but was lower still for the woman. Only 57% (38 of 67) and 15% (10 of 67) of physicians discussed the nature of the decision and elicited the patient's preference while consulting with the man and woman, respectively. Even after adjusting for physicians' recommendations regarding TKA, when interacting with the woman, physicians included fewer IDM elements (adjusted mean difference in IDM score 1.2 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.6, 1.8]; P < 0.001) and had poorer interpersonal skills (adjusted mean difference 14.1 [95% CI 9.0, 19.2]; P < 0.001) compared with their consultation with the man. CONCLUSION: Physicians provided less medical information and less encouragement to participate in the decision to undergo TKA to a woman compared with a man, irrespective of their recommendation regarding TKA. Our findings suggest that in addition to directly influencing physicians' clinical decision making, gender bias may also influence physicians' interpersonal behavior.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".