Psychosocial Factors Are Associated With Risk Acceptance in Upper Extremity Patients.
decision-making
maximum acceptable risk
orthopedics
psychological
risk acceptance
upper extremity
Journal
Hand (New York, N.Y.)
ISSN: 1558-9455
Titre abrégé: Hand (N Y)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101264149
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2022
09 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
29
12
2020
medline:
1
9
2022
entrez:
28
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients who help choose their health strategies are more adherent and achieve better health. An important role of the clinician is to verify that a patient's expressed preferences are consistent with what matters most to the patient and not muddled by common misconceptions about symptoms or conditions. Patient choices are influenced by estimation of the potential benefits and potential harms of a given intervention. One method for quantifying these estimations is the concept of maximum acceptable risk (MAR), or the maximum risk that subjects are willing to accept in exchange for a given therapeutic benefit. This study addressed the hypothesis that misconceptions due to unhelpful cognitive bias regarding pain are associated with risk acceptance among people seeking care for an upper extremity condition. We invited 140 new adult patients visiting an upper extremity specialist to complete a survey including demographics, pain intensity, depression and anxiety symptoms, catastrophic thinking, activity limitations, and MAR. Trauma or nontrauma diagnosis was obtained from the treating clinician and recorded by the research assistant. We used bivariate and linear regression analyses to identify factors associated with MAR among this population. Accounting for potential confounding in multivariable analysis, higher MAR was associated with older age and greater catastrophic thinking. Specialists can be aware that people with more unhelpful cognitive biases may be willing to take more risk. Vigilance for common misconceptions and gentle, incremental reorientation of those misconceptions can increase the probability that people will choose options consistent with what matters most to them.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients who help choose their health strategies are more adherent and achieve better health. An important role of the clinician is to verify that a patient's expressed preferences are consistent with what matters most to the patient and not muddled by common misconceptions about symptoms or conditions. Patient choices are influenced by estimation of the potential benefits and potential harms of a given intervention. One method for quantifying these estimations is the concept of maximum acceptable risk (MAR), or the maximum risk that subjects are willing to accept in exchange for a given therapeutic benefit. This study addressed the hypothesis that misconceptions due to unhelpful cognitive bias regarding pain are associated with risk acceptance among people seeking care for an upper extremity condition.
METHODS
We invited 140 new adult patients visiting an upper extremity specialist to complete a survey including demographics, pain intensity, depression and anxiety symptoms, catastrophic thinking, activity limitations, and MAR. Trauma or nontrauma diagnosis was obtained from the treating clinician and recorded by the research assistant. We used bivariate and linear regression analyses to identify factors associated with MAR among this population.
RESULTS
Accounting for potential confounding in multivariable analysis, higher MAR was associated with older age and greater catastrophic thinking.
CONCLUSIONS
Specialists can be aware that people with more unhelpful cognitive biases may be willing to take more risk. Vigilance for common misconceptions and gentle, incremental reorientation of those misconceptions can increase the probability that people will choose options consistent with what matters most to them.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33356574
doi: 10.1177/1558944720974123
pmc: PMC9465787
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
988-992Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jan 15;38(2):140-7
pubmed: 23124256
Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Jan;85(1):53-62
pubmed: 20042562
Ann Vasc Surg. 2017 Apr;40:223-230
pubmed: 27908805
Value Health. 2015 Mar;18(2):250-9
pubmed: 25773560
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2018 Jan;76(1):6-12
pubmed: 29364388
Patient. 2017 Jun;10(3):263-266
pubmed: 28247251
Ann Pharmacother. 2010 Mar;44(3):479-88
pubmed: 20124463
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013 Aug;11(4):319-29
pubmed: 23637054
Dis Esophagus. 2018 Apr 1;31(4):
pubmed: 29036278
Patient. 2018 Jun;11(3):285-300
pubmed: 29332301
Value Health. 2010 Jun-Jul;13(4):418-23
pubmed: 20230550
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 10;8(12):e82796
pubmed: 24340060
Med Decis Making. 2018 Jul;38(5):593-600
pubmed: 29611459
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Sep 12;20(1):421
pubmed: 31511076
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014 Nov;69(6):870-80
pubmed: 24149517
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Feb;89(2):312-5
pubmed: 21160469
Gastroenterology. 2007 Sep;133(3):769-79
pubmed: 17628557
Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):746-750
pubmed: 27712701
Implement Sci. 2018 Jul 26;13(1):98
pubmed: 30045735
J Pain Res. 2016 Dec 30;10:65-72
pubmed: 28096691
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):469-80
pubmed: 21310854
Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999 Apr;38(4):321-4
pubmed: 10378708
Rheumatol Int. 2017 Sep;37(9):1423-1434
pubmed: 28623526