Fulfillment of Patient Expectations After Spine Surgery is Critical to Patient Satisfaction: A Cohort Study of Spine Surgery Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important indicator used to monitor quality of care and outcomes after spine surgery. OBJECTIVE: To examine the complex relationship between preoperative expectations, fulfillment of expectations, postsurgical outcomes, and satisfaction after spine surgery. METHODS: In this national study of patients undergoing elective surgery for degenerative spinal conditions from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network Registry, we used logistic regression to examine the relationships between patient satisfaction with surgery (1-5 scale), preoperative expectation score (0 = none to 100 = highest), fulfillment of expectations, and disability and pain improvement. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of patients were extremely satisfied, and 3% were extremely dissatisfied. Expectations were variable and generally high (mean 79.5 of 100) while 17.3% reported that none of their expectations were met, 49.8% reported that their most important expectation was met, and 32.9% reported that their most important expectation was not met but others were. The results from the fully adjusted ordinal logistic model for satisfaction indicate that satisfaction was higher among patients with higher preoperative expectations (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI]: 1.11, [1.04-1.19]), reporting important improvements in disability (OR [95% CI]: 2.52 [1.96-3.25]) and pain (OR [95% CI]: 1.64 [1.25-2.15]) and reporting that expectations were fulfilled (OR = 80.15, for all expectations were met). The results were similar for lumbar and cervical patients. CONCLUSION: Given the dominant impact of expectation fulfillment on satisfaction level, there is an opportunity for improving overall patient satisfaction by specifically assessing and mitigating the potential discrepancies between patients' preoperative expectations and likely surgical outcomes. The findings are likely relevant across elective surgical populations.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".