MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404838208 · doi:10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.09.009

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice: A National Survey of Hand Surgeons

2024· article· en· W4404838208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie Choo, Rown Parola, Benjamin J. Kirby, Daniel A. London

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hand Surgery Global Online · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical PracticeMedicineMedical educationFamily medicineMedical physicsGeneral surgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) use in practice could be limited secondary to logistical constraints and lack of consensus regarding PROMs' clinical value. Therefore, the goals of this study are to determine (1) the use of PROMs by practicing hand surgeons, (2) which questionnaires are most used and the purpose for collection, and (3) the barriers to use. Methods A survey of American Society for Surgeons of the Hand members was conducted in May 2023. Demographic data of respondents, PROMs collected, and implementation and barriers to use were assessed. Associations between variables were determined by Fischer exact tests and logistic regression. Results A total of 419 surveys were completed from the 4,523 individuals contacted, representing a 9.3% response rate. Eighty-one percent (81%) were US/Canadian respondents, and 19% reported as other nationalities, with other nationalities reporting use of PROMs at a higher rate than US/Canadian respondents. Odds of PROM use were higher for academic, hybrid, and hospital employed respondents relative to those in private practice settings. The 247 (58%) respondents who did not use PROMs cited barriers including logistic or administrative concerns, uncertainty on application in practice, having no interest, and cost concerns. The most frequently used upper-extremity questionnaire among the 172 (42%) respondents using PROMs was the Quick DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), which was used by 112 respondents (65.1%). Patient-reported outcome measures were collected for research/database purposes by 130 (76%) and monitoring routine clinical care by 103 (60%). Among those using PROMs for clinical care, 79 (77%) of respondents use PROMs for postoperative recovery monitoring and 52 (55%) for counseling regarding surgical expectations. Conclusions Patient-reported outcome measure use varies by practice setting, with most respondents not collecting PROMs. There remains large variability in the application of PROMs, and further research is needed to determine and demonstrate the value of PROMs in hand surgery for routine clinical care. Type of study/level of evidence Prognostic IIc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hand Surgery Global OnlineSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207