Issues of Importance to Patients Seeking Care from Members of the AOFAS: A Preliminary Report of the Outcomes Committee of the AOFAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this multi-center study was to examine the outcomes of importance for patients seeking treatment for foot and ankle disorders. An improved understanding of patient outcome preferences will assist surgeons in improving patient satisfaction. METHODS: An open-ended priority function questionnaire was administered to 235 patients presenting as new patients to five different outpatient locations. The questionnaire was designed to identify activities of importance to patients and was based on the McMaster Toronto Arthritis (MACTAR) patient preference disability questionnaire. Subjects were asked to list the specific activities that were limited by their condition. Open-ended answers were written on five blank spaces and then ranked as to their importance. The visual analog pain scale was recorded as a measure of the severity of the patient's symptoms at the time the response was made. The outpatient settings were two university hospitals, two private offices with academic affiliation, and one private office. Two hundred thirty-five surveys were collected between September and November of 2000; 227 surveys were acceptable for analysis. The respondents included 132 females (58.1%), 94 males (41.4%) and one patient who did not specify his gender (0.4%). The mean age was 45.8 (range 18 to 83) years. RESULTS: Average pain at the time of assessment was 2.7 on a scale of 0 to 9 and was reported to increase to 4.8 in a typical day. The most frequently ranked limitations were difficulty with walking (159), running (73), standing (55), and exercise (54). Walking also was the issue ranked as the highest priority (77 of 159), while running (11 of 73), standing (10 of 55) and exercise (3 of 54) were assigned lesser priority values. Only 68 of 227 respondents failed to list walking as an issue. Work, sleep, and social activities were not commonly cited as issues of importance. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting to office practices identified as specializing in foot and ankle disorders are predominantly middle-aged women in mild to moderate pain. Walking is the function most frequently identified as a problem and ranked as the highest priority for improvement. Social limitations were unlikely to be named as a limitation in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".