The Impact of Patient Expectations on Outcome Following Treatment for Spinal Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Surgeon completed questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: To determine information provided by spine surgeons to patients, part of a 4-part study determining the impact of patient expectations on outcome following spinal trauma. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An important goal of treatment is patient satisfaction, which may be influenced by patient expectations. Impact of patient expectations on outcome has been demonstrated in various elective orthopedic populations. It is anticipated that there will be similar, if not greater, impact on outcome in a trauma setting. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed, in a case-based format, to determine the information provided by spine surgeons to their patients. There were 3 questionnaires, each consisting of 5 cases and grouped by cervical spine trauma, thoracolumbar spine trauma, and spinal cord injury. These questionnaires were distributed to members of the Spine Trauma Study Group and our division. Statistical analysis consisted of a single-factor random effects model. In this analysis, the degree of variability was quantified as the ratio of surgeon induced variance over total variance for the questions. RESULTS: Questionnaires were distributed to 54 surgeons and 31 responses received (57%). There was substantial variability in responses ranging from a ratio of 9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0-26] for the regaining range of motion 1 year following cervical spine trauma domain to a ratio of 84% (95% CI: 69-92) for the early postoperative spasticity following spinal cord injury domain. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated substantial variability in the information provided by spine surgeons to spine trauma patients and the need to improve the quality of information provided, allowing patient expectations to be more appropriate, potentially maximizing their outcome. Further areas for study include, assessment of the best available evidence on which to base information provided to spinal trauma patients, determination of what information spinal trauma patients view as relevant and the effect appropriate expectations have on outcome.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".