Toward Enhanced Clinical Decision Support for Patients Undergoing a Hip or Knee Replacement: Focus Group and Interview Study With Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current assessment of recovery after total hip or knee replacement is largely based on the measurement of health outcomes through self-report and clinical observations at follow-up appointments in clinical settings. Home activity-based monitoring may improve assessment of recovery by enabling the collection of more holistic information on a continuous basis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to introduce orthopedic surgeons to time-series analyses of patient activity data generated from a platform of sensors deployed in the homes of patients who have undergone primary total hip or knee replacement and understand the potential role of these data in postoperative clinical decision-making. METHODS: Orthopedic surgeons and registrars were recruited through a combination of convenience and snowball sampling. Inclusion criteria were a minimum required experience in total joint replacement surgery specific to the hip or knee or familiarity with postoperative recovery assessment. Exclusion criteria included a lack of specific experience in the field. Of the 9 approached participants, 6 (67%) orthopedic surgeons and 3 (33%) registrars took part in either 1 of 3 focus groups or 1 of 2 interviews. Data were collected using an action-based approach in which stimulus materials (mock data visualizations) provided imaginative and creative interactions with the data. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Each data visualization was presented sequentially followed by a discussion of key illustrative commentary from participants, ending with a summary of key themes emerging across the focus group and interview data set. CONCLUSIONS: The limitations of the evidence are as follows. The data presented are from 1 English hospital. However, all data reflect the views of surgeons following standard national approaches and training. Although convenience sampling was used, participants' background, skills, and experience were considered heterogeneous. Passively collected home monitoring data offered a real opportunity to more objectively characterize patients' recovery from surgery. However, orthopedic surgeons highlighted the considerable difficulty in navigating large amounts of complex data within short medical consultations with patients. Orthopedic surgeons thought that a proposed dashboard presenting information and decision support alerts would fit best with existing clinical workflows. From this, the following guidelines for system design were developed: minimize the risk of misinterpreting data, express a level of confidence in the data, support clinicians in developing relevant skills as time-series data are often unfamiliar, and consider the impact of patient engagement with data in the future. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021862.
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 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".