A bird can't fly on one wing: patient views on waiting for hip and knee replacement surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To obtain patients' perspectives on acceptable waiting times for hip or knee replacement surgery. METHODS: A questionnaire with both open- and close-ended items was mailed to 432 consecutive patients who had hip or knee replacement surgery 3-12 months previously in Saskatchewan, Canada. A content analysis was used to analyse the text data from the open-ended questions. RESULTS: The sample of 303 (response rate 70%) was 59% female with a mean age of 70 years (SD 11). The median waiting time from the decision date to surgery was 17 weeks. Individuals who rated their waiting time very acceptable (48%) had a median waiting time of 13 weeks compared with a median waiting time of 22 weeks for those who rated it unacceptable (23%). The two most common determinants of acceptability were patient expectations and pain and its impact on patient quality of life. The median maximum acceptable waiting time was 13 weeks and median ideal waiting time, 8.6 weeks. Seventy-nine per cent felt that those in greater need (higher severity) should go before them on the waiting list. Patient ratings of maximum acceptable waiting time were based on: pain and loss of mobility, time needed to prepare for surgery, and severity at the time of seeing the surgeon. In consideration of changing their surgeon to one with a shorter waiting list, 68% would not. CONCLUSIONS: Patient views on waiting times are not only related to quality of life issues, but also to prior expectations and notions of fairness and priority. Understanding patient views on waiting for surgery has implications for better management of waiting times and experiences for joint replacement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".