Variation in Spine Surgeon Selection Criteria Between Neurosurgery and Orthopedic Surgery Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine if there are any differences in spine surgeon selection criteria between neurosurgery patients and orthopedic patients. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The evolution of the health care delivery system has allowed for increased patient autonomy in provider selection. However, the process and criteria by which patients choose particular spine surgeons is not well understood. Furthermore, differences in physician selection criteria used by patients who present either to a neurosurgery or orthopedic spine surgeon has not been previously established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire consisting of 26 questions was administered to 644 patients seeking treatment from either a single neurosurgery-trained or orthopedics-trained spine surgeon at an urban institution. Four questions pertained to demographic variables. Sixteen questions asked patients to rate specific spine surgeon selection criteria in terms of importance (scale, 1-10). Six questions were multiple choice, asking patients to select their preferences towards aspects of a spine surgeon. Patient responses were compared using χ analysis or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: The 3 most important factors for selecting a spine surgeon were the same for neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery patients: board certification (neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery) (9.07±2.35, 9.22±1.79), in-network provider status (8.01±3.15, 8.09±3.03), and surgeon bedside manner (7.88±2.52, 8.07±2.29). When listing their preference regarding surgeon specialty training, 82.74% of neurosurgery patients and 48.81% of orthopedic surgery patients preferred a surgeon who was trained in neurosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: The growth in patient autonomy within the current health care system has emphasized the importance of identifying patient preferences in the physician selection process.Board certification, in-network insurance status, and bedside manner may be the most influential factors for patients in spine surgeon selection irrespective of surgical subspecialty. Patients may also be more likely to seek spine surgeons with neurosurgery training over orthopedic surgery training. The present study provides spine surgeons a framework to improve both patient recruitment and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".