Predictive Tool Use and Willingness for Surgery in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis
Yushy Zhou,Lauren Patten,Tim Spelman,Samantha Bunzli,Peter F. M. Choong,Michelle M. Dowsey,Chris Schilling
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.0890
2024-03-09
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:Importance Despite the increasing number of tools available to predict the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effect of these predictive tools on patient decision-making remains uncertain. Objective To assess the effect of an online predictive tool on patient-reported willingness to undergo TKA. Design, Setting, and Participants This parallel, double-masked, 2-arm randomized clinical trial compared predictive tool use with treatment as usual (TAU). The study was conducted between June 30, 2022, and July 31, 2023. Participants were followed up for 6 months after enrollment. Participants were recruited from a major Australian private health insurance company and from the surgical waiting list for publicly funded TKA at a tertiary hospital. Eligible participants had unilateral knee osteoarthritis, were contemplating TKA, and had previously tried nonsurgical interventions, such as lifestyle modifications, physiotherapy, and pain medications. Intervention The intervention group was provided access to an online predictive tool at the beginning of the study. This tool offered information regarding the likelihood of improvement in quality of life if patients chose to undergo TKA. The predictions were based on the patient's age, sex, and baseline symptoms. Conversely, the control group received TAU without access to the predictive tool. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was the reduction in participants' willingness to undergo surgery at 6 months after tool use as measured by binomial logistic regression. Secondary outcome measures included participant treatment preference and the quality of their decision-making process as measured by the Knee Decision Quality Instrument. Results Of 211 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 65.8 [8.3] years; 118 female [55.9%]), 105 were allocated to the predictive tool group and 106 to the TAU group. After adjusting for baseline differences in willingness for surgery, the predictive tool did not significantly reduce the primary outcome of willingness for surgery at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.42-1.71; P = .64). Conclusions and Relevance Despite the absence of treatment effect on willingness for TKA, predictive tools might still enhance health outcomes of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Additional research is needed to optimize the design and implementation of predictive tools, address limitations, and fully understand their effect on the decision-making process in TKA. Trial Registration ANZCTR.org.au Identifier:ACTRN12622000072718
medicine, general & internal