'It's just my knee': a qualitative study investigating the process of reframing and young athletes' perceived quality of life between anterior cruciate ligament injury and surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the factors influencing young athletes' perceptions of quality of life (QOL) following an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, prior to reconstructive surgery. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis of data. SETTING: Tertiary sports medicine clinic with patients recruited from the practices of three specialist orthopaedic surgeons. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty athletes aged 14-25 provided consent to participate in the study and completed interviews prior to their ACL reconstruction surgery. Participants were eligible to participate if they were scheduled to undergo ACL reconstruction, were 25 years of age or younger, identified as athletes (participated in any level of organised sport), could communicate in English and agreed to be audio recorded. Participants were not eligible if they had experienced a multiligament injury or fracture. RESULTS: Young athletes shared common factors that made up their QOL; social connections and support, sport, health, and independence. However, participants' perceptions of their current QOL were quite variable (13-95/100 on a Visual Analogue Scale). Participants who were able to reframe their injury experience by shifting focus to the positive or unaffected aspects of their lives tended to have more favourable perceptions of their QOL than participants who shifted focus to the losses associated with injury. CONCLUSIONS: Young athletes who have experienced an ACL injury define their QOL based on social support, sport, health and independence. Individual processes of adaptation and cognitive reframing in response to an ACL injury may exert a greater influence on postinjury QOL than the physical ramifications of the injury itself. Understanding individual perceptions may help target potential interventions or supports to enhance athletes' adaptation to injury.

Chronic Struggle: An Institutional Ethnography of Chronic Pain and Marginalization.

There have been several recent calls to re-think chronic pain in response to the growing awareness of social inequities that impact the prevalence of chronic pain and its management. This in turn has resulted in new explorations of suffering as it relates to pain. While laudable, many of these clinically oriented accounts are abstract and often fail to offer a critical theoretical understanding of social and structural inequities. To truly rethink pain, we must also reconsider suffering, beginning in the everyday expert knowledge of people with chronic pain who can offer insights in relation to their bodies and also the organization of the social circumstances in which they live. Our team undertook a sociological approach known as institutional ethnography (IE) to explicate the work of people in managing lives beset by chronic pain and the inequities that stem from marginalization. In keeping with our critical paradigm, we describe participant accounts as situated, rather than lived, to de-emphasize the individual in favour of the social and relational. Through our analysis, we offer a new concept of chronic struggle to capture how pain, illness, economic deprivation, and suffering constitute a knot of experience that people living with chronic pain are obliged to simplify in order to fit existing logics of medicine. Our goal is to identify the social organization of chronic pain care which underpins experience in order to situate the social as political rather than medical or individual. PERSPECTIVE: This article explicates the health work of people living with chronic pain and marginalization, drawing on their situated experience. We offer the concept of chronic struggle as a conceptualization that allows us to bring into clear view the social organization of chronic pain in which the social is visible as political and structural rather than medical or individual.

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The sample was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years; 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing; 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma.

How the Suboxone Education Programme presented as a solution to risks in the Canadian opioid crisis: a critical discourse analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmaceutical industry involvement in medical education, research and clinical practice can lead to conflicts of interest. Within this context, this study examined how the 'Suboxone Education Programme', developed and delivered by a pharmaceutical company as part of a federally regulated risk management program, was presented as a solution to various kinds of risks relating to opioid use in public documents from medical institutions across Canada. SETTING: These documents were issued during the Canadian opioid crisis, a time when the involvement of industry in health policy was being widely questioned given industry's role in driving the overprescribing of opioid analgesics and contributing to population-level harms. DESIGN: A critical discourse analysis of 69 documents collected between July 2020 and May 2021 referencing the Suboxone Education Program spanning 13 years (2007-2021) from medical, nursing and pharmacy institutions sourced from every Canadian province and territory. Discursive themes were identified through iterative and duplicate analyses using a semistructured data extraction instrument. RESULTS: Documents characterised the Programme as addressing iatrogenic risks from overprescribing opioid analgesics, environmental risks from a toxic street drug supply and pharmacological risks relating to the dominant therapeutic alternative of methadone. The programme was identified as being able to address these risks by providing mechanisms to surveil healthcare professionals and to facilitate the prescribing of Suboxone. Medical institutions legitimised the Suboxone Education Programme by lending their regulatory, epidemiological and professional authority. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing risk is considered as a central, moral responsibility of contemporary healthcare services. In this case, moral imperatives to address opioid crisis-related risks overrode other ethical concerns regarding conflicts of interest between industry and public welfare. Failing to address these conflicts potentially imperils efforts of mitigating population health harms by propagating an important driving force of the opioid crisis.

Frequency and characteristics of patient exclusion criteria in Canadian multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: A multidisciplinary approach is recommended for patients with complex chronic pain (CP). Many multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MTPFs) use patient exclusion criteria but little is known about their characteristics. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency and characteristics of exclusion criteria in public Canadian MTPFs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in which we defined an MPTF as a clinic staffed with professionals from three disciplines or more (including at least one medical specialty) and whose services were integrated within the facility. We disseminated a web-based questionnaire in 2017-2018 to the administrative leads of MPTFs across the country. They were invited to complete the questionnaire about the characteristics of their facilities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation measures. RESULTS: A total of 87 MTPFs were included in the analyses. Half of them (52%) reported using three exclusion criteria or more. There was no significant association between the number of exclusion criteria and wait time for a first appointment or number of new consultations in the past year. Fibromyalgia and migraine were the most frequently excluded pain syndromes (10% and 7% of MPTFs, respectively). More than one MPTF out of four excluded patients with mental health disorders (30%) and/or substance use disorders (29%), including MPTFs with specialists in their staff. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary pain treatment facility exclusion criteria are most likely to affect CP patients living with complex pain issues and psychosocial vulnerabilities. Policy efforts are needed to support Canadian MPTFs in contributing to equitable access to pain management.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Une approche multidisciplinaire est recommandée pour les patients souffrant de douleur chronique (DC) complexe. De nombreux centres multidisciplinaires de traitement de la douleur (CMTD) utilisent des critères d'exclusion des patients, mais on ne sait que peu de choses sur leurs caractéristiques. L'objectif de cette étude était de décrire la fréquence et les caractéristiques des critères d'exclusion dans les CMTD publics canadiens. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude transversale dans laquelle nous avons défini un CMTD comme une clinique composée de professionnels de trois disciplines ou plus (y compris au moins une spécialité médicale) et dont les services étaient intégrés à l'établissement. En 2017-2018, nous avons fait parvenir un questionnaire en ligne aux responsables administratifs des CMTD partout au pays. Ils ont été invités à remplir le questionnaire sur les caractéristiques de leurs établissements. Les données ont été analysées à l'aide de statistiques descriptives et de mesures de corrélation. RéSULTATS: Au total, 87 CMTD ont été inclus dans les analyses. La moitié d'entre eux (52 %) ont déclaré utiliser trois critères d'exclusion ou plus. Il n'y avait pas d'association significative entre le nombre de critères d'exclusion et le temps d'attente pour un premier rendez-vous ou le nombre de nouvelles consultations au cours de la dernière année. La fibromyalgie et la migraine étaient les syndromes douloureux les plus fréquemment exclus (10 % et 7 % des CMTD, respectivement). Plus d'un CMTD sur quatre excluait les patients atteints de troubles de santé mentale (30 %) et/ou de troubles liés à l'utilisation de substances (29 %), y compris les CMTD comptant des spécialistes dans leur personnel. CONCLUSION: Les critères d'exclusion des centres multidisciplinaires de traitement de la douleur sont plus susceptibles d'affecter les patients atteints de douleur chronique vivant avec des problèmes de douleur complexes et des vulnérabilités psychosociales. Des efforts au niveau des politiques sont nécessaires pour aider les CMTD canadiens à favoriser un accès équitable à la prise en charge de la douleur.

A Foucauldian discourse analysis of media reporting on the nurse-as-hero during COVID-19.

This study uses a Foucauldian discourse analysis to explore media reporting on the role of nurses as being consistently positioned 'heroes' during COVID-19. In so doing, it highlights multiple intersecting discourses at play, with the caring discourse acting as a central one in negatively impacting nurses' ability to advocate for safe working conditions during a public health emergency. Drawing on media reports during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada in the spring of 2020 and on historical information from SARS, this study seeks to establish caring as a discourse and examine if the caring discourse impedes nurses' ability to protect themselves from harm. The results of this analysis explicate how public media discourses that position nurses as caring, sacrificial and heroic may have impacted their ability to maintain their personal safety as a result of the expectations put upon the nursing profession.

Differing Conceptualizations of the Goals of Care Discussion: A Critical Discourse Analysis.

CONTEXT: The goals of care discussion (GOCD) has been positioned as an improvement strategy to address discordance between care decisions made by seriously ill patients and care received. Interventions aimed at improving GOCDs however have had limited success. This may in part be due to the considerable variation in views on the essential components and expected outcomes of a GOCD. This variability, and consequently clinical approaches to GOCDs, may reflect fundamental differences in how the GOCD is conceptualized. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize differing conceptualizations of the GOCD. METHODS: Critical discourse analysis was used to qualitatively examine GOCDs documented for inpatients of 35 Canadian palliative medicine (PM), critical care medicine (CCM) and general internal medicine (GIM) physicians. Patterns in the ways the GOCD had been constructed were characterized by identifying different aspects of the approaches used by clinicians. RESULTS: GOCD notes varied in the predominant style and tone (from narrative to biomedical), predominant information source (patient/family to physician), and contribution of the patient's perspective. Notably binary differences were also found in the locus of goals and located either with the patient or with the broad concept of treatments. Although not exclusively, locus of goals tended to be with the patient among PM physicians and with treatments among CCM and GIM physicians. CONCLUSION: These findings offer clinical evidence for differing conceptualizations of the GOCD and orientations to goals as either person-centered or treatment-centered. This phenomenon may be in part discipline-based and has important implications for both clinical practice and training experiences.

Are quality improvement plans perceived to improve the quality of primary care in Ontario? Qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care administrators' perceptions of provincially mandated quality improvement plans, and barriers to and facilitators of using quality improvement plans as tools for improving the quality of primary care. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven primary care administrators (ie, executive directors, director of clinical services, office administrators) at 7 family health teams and 4 community health centres. METHODS: All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed deductively to generate a framework based on a conceptual model of structural, organizational, individual, and innovation-related factors that influence the success of improvement initiatives and, inductively, to generate additional themes. MAIN FINDINGS: Provincially mandated quality improvement plans seem to have raised awareness of and provided an overall focus on quality improvement, and have contributed to primary care organizations implementing initiatives to address quality gaps. Four factors that have contributed to the success of quality improvement plans relate to attributes of the quality improvement plans (adaptability and compatibility) and contextual factors (leadership and organizational culture). However, participants expressed that the use of quality improvement plans have not yet led to substantial improvements in the quality of primary care in Ontario, which may be owing to several challenges: poor data quality, lack of staff and physician engagement and buy-in, and lack of resources to support measurement and quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Awareness of and focused attention on the need for high-quality patient care may have increased, but participants expressed that substantial improvements in quality care have yet to be achieved in Ontario. The lack of perceived improvements is likely the result of multifaceted and complex challenges primary care organizations face when trying to improve patient care. To effect positive change, organization- and health system-level efforts are needed to improve measurement capabilities, improve staff and physician engagement, and increase capacity for quality improvement among organizations.

Caregiver reactions to neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness in patients with severe brain injury: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Severe brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability. Diagnosis and prognostication are difficult, and errors occur often. Novel neuroimaging methods can improve diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, especially in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDoC). Yet it is currently unknown how family caregivers understand this information, raising ethical concerns that disclosure of neuroimaging results could result in therapeutic misconception or false hope. METHODS: To examine these ethical concerns, we conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers of patients with PDoC who were enrolled in a concurrent neuroimaging research program designed to detect covert consciousness following severe brain injury. Caregivers held surrogate decision-making status for a patient. Interviews were conducted at two time points for each caregiver. The first interview occurred before the disclosure of neuroimaging results. The second occurred after disclosure. Descriptive analysis was applied to the data of four interview topics: (1) expectations for neuroimaging; (2) reactions to evidence of preserved cognition; (3) reactions to null results; and (4) understanding of the results and study. RESULTS: Twelve caregivers participated in the study; two caregivers shared surrogate decision-making status for one patient with PDoC. Twenty-one interviews were completed; one caregiver declined to participate in the post-disclosure interview. Three patients with PDoC associated with the study displayed evidence of covert consciousness. Overall, caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results. Caregivers who received results of covert consciousness were generally pleased. However, there was some variation in expectations and reactions to these data and null results. CONCLUSION: This study, for the first time, reveals caregiver expectations for and reactions to neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness in patients with PDoC. Caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results, casting doubt on speculative ethical concerns regarding therapeutic misconception and false hope. However, disclosure of neuroimaging result could be improved. Pre-disclosure consultations might assist professionals in shaping caregiver expectations. Standardization of disclosure might also improve comprehension of the results.

The power of potential: Assisted reproduction and the counterstories of women who discontinue fertility treatment.

Despite their low and inconsistent rates of success, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are presented by fertility clinics and constructed in media and popular culture as an effective treatment for infertility. The ways in which such technologies medicalize women's health and bodies have been well documented by social scientists and feminist health researchers. However, little is known about the struggles women face in cases of "failure"; that is, when ART does not achieve its purported potential to assist women in their attempts to conceive and have the desired outcomes of conception and birth. Using a post-structural feminist interpretive framework combined with a narrative methodology, this paper critically examines the ways in which social and cultural narratives about gender and biotechnology shape women's accounts of discontinuing ART. Thirty-six interviews were conducted with twenty-two women across Canada who were at various stages of discontinuation and who utilized a variety of treatment types. Three inter-related narrative themes were developed to categorize the stories of struggle: (i) a growing desperation to be pregnant; (ii) confronting paternalistic medical expectations; and (iii) internalizing and resisting blame for treatment failures. These themes highlight both the explicit and subtle ways in which restrictive social and cultural narratives about womanhood and motherhood were perpetuated in clinical interactions, which ultimately made ending treatment more difficult. Our analysis illustrates how women navigated and resisted such narratives, through pausing or ending treatment despite provider recommendations and clinical messages. We suggest that fertility providers critically reflect on the potentially harmful language used during interactions with patients and recommend that discontinuation discussions become a recurring, normalized component of treatment protocols and patient-provider conversations so that women feel better supported to end treatment when they believe it is financially, emotionally, and physically beneficial for them to do so.

More than words: methods to elicit talk in interviews.

In health services and primary care research, semi-structured interviews are a very common method of generating data. These interviews have a pre-determined set of topics, with questions and prompts written in advance, though there is flexibility to adjust the interview to match the direction set by the participant. Like all methods, semi-structured interviews have limits, some of which can be addressed through adaptation. In the social sciences, some interview methods include prompts beyond verbal questions to participants, called elicitation tools. Visuals (e.g. photos), videos, audio excerpts and texts can be brought into interviews to orient the discussion. Another type of interview­mobile interview­happens in places meaningful to the participants. Depending on the research question, elicitation methods can enrich semi-structured interviews. This methods brief will introduce interviewing with elicitation tools, and outline strengths of such methods.

Taking a Stand to Remedy the Inadequacies of Action on Health Equity Exposed by COVID-19.

As we struggle with the impacts of a global pandemic, there is growing evidence of the inequitable impacts of this crisis. In this commentary, we argue that actions on health equity to date have been insufficient despite significant scholarship to guide both practice and policy. To move from talk to action on health equity, we propose the following five approaches: (1) reversing the erosion of publicly funded health systems; (2) creating broad economic means to support health; (3) moving health action upstream; (4) challenging ageist and/or ableist discourses; and (5) decolonizing approaches and enacting solidarity. Engaging in these actions will help close the gaps and address disparities made more evident during this global pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic reinforces the need for us to move from discussion to action if we are to achieve health for all. Adopting a health equity lens is a means of both understanding and stimulating action to readdress the root causes of inequities and work toward a fairer, more just society.

The multiplicity of caregiving burden: a qualitative analysis of families with prolonged disorders of consciousness.

Objective: To understand the multiple and sometimes conflicting roles substitute decision makers (SDMs) of individuals in a vegetative state (VS), minimally conscious state (MCS), or with locked-in syndrome (LIS) perform while caring for a loved one and the competing priorities derived from these roles.Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews using a constructive-grounded theory design. Twelve SDMs, who were also family members for 11 patients, were interviewed at two time points (except one) for a total of 21 in-depth interviews.Results: Participants described that caregiving is often the central role which they identify as their top priority and around which they coordinate and to some extent subordinate their other roles. In addition to caregiving, they participated in a wide variety of roles, which were sometimes in conflict, as they became caregivers for a loved one with chronic and complex needs. SDMs described the caregiver role as complex and intense that lead to physical, emotional, social, and economic burdens.Conclusion: SDMs report high levels of burdens in caring for a person with a prolonged disorder of consciousness. Lack of health system support that recognized the broader context of SDMs lives, including their multiple competing priorities, was a major contributing factor.

Understanding decisions to scale up: a qualitative case study of three health service intervention evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: Efforts to scale up evidence-based health care interventions are seen as a key strategy to address complex health system challenges. However, scale-up efforts have shown significant variability. We address the gap between scale-up theory and practice by exploring the socio-cultural factors at play in the evaluation and scale-up of three interventions within the clinical field. METHODS: A qualitative multiple case study was conducted to characterize the evaluation and scale-up efforts of three interventions. We interviewed 18 participants, including clinicians and researchers across the three cases. Using Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of field and capital as a theoretical lens, we conducted a thematic analysis of the data. RESULTS: Despite the espoused goals of ensuring that health service interventions are always based on high-quality evidence within the clinical field, this study demonstrates that the outcomes of the evaluations are not the only factor in the decision to engage in scale-up efforts. Important socio-cultural factors also come into play. Bourdieu uses the term capital to refer to the resources that agents compete for and with their acquisition, accumulate power and/or social standing. The type of evidence valued in the clinical field and the ability to leverage capital in demonstrating that value are also important factors. CONCLUSIONS: Determining if an intervention is effective and should be scaled up is more complex in practice than described in the literature. Efforts are needed to explicitly include the role of social processes in the current frameworks guiding scaling-up efforts.

When all else fails: The (mis)use of qualitative research in the evaluation of complex interventions.

RATIONAL, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Qualitative research has been promoted as an important component of the evaluation of complex interventions to support the scale up and spread of health service interventions, but is currently not being maximized in practice. We aim to identify and explore the sociocultural and structural factors that impact the uses (and misuses) of qualitative research in the evaluation of complex health services interventions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative analysis of data collected in a multiple case study of the evaluation and scale up and spread of three health service intervention. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate the challenges of meaningfully integrating qualitative research in evaluation programmes lead by clinicians with limited qualitative expertise and operating within an environment dominated by biomedical research, even with methodological support. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings we encourage ongoing engagement of qualitative researchers in evaluation programmes to begin to refine our methodological understanding, while also suggesting changes to medical education and evaluation funding models to create fertile environments for interdisciplinary collaborations.

Experiences of family of individuals in a locked in, minimally conscious state, or vegetative state with the health care system.

Primary Objective: To understand the experiences of family members of individuals in a locked-in state (LIS), minimally conscious state (MCS), or vegetative state (VS) with the health-care system when caring for their family member.Research Design: The study adopted a qualitative descriptive approach drawing on central tenets of constructivist grounded theory described by Charmaz. Our analysis drew on emphasizing connections between theory, concepts, and empirical data using a constant comparative method.Methods and Procedures: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with family members of individuals in a LIS, MCS, or VS. Participants were recruited between June 2014 and December 2016.Main Outcomes and Results: 22 interviews were conducted, which comprised interviews with 12 family members. The following themes were identified: care coordination challenges, lack of flexibility in health-care policies, and inappropriate care settings.Conclusions: Family members of individuals in a LIS, MCS, or VS described playing a significant role in the lives of their family member. Based on the results of this study, flexibility in health-care policies and/or programming should be adopted in the face of the challenges identified. Implementation of interventions to support caregivers and transitions is increasingly important.

Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal.

OBJECTIVES: In comparison to quantitative research, the impact of qualitative articles in the medical literature has been questioned by the BMJ; to explore this, we compared the impact of quantitative and qualitative articles published in BMJ. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bibliometric and altmetric measures of research impact were collected using Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Plum Analytics and ProQuest Altmetric. Bibliometric measures consisted of citation numbers, field weighted citation impact and citation percentile. Altmetric measures consisted of article usage, captures, mentions, readers, altmetric attention score and score percentile. Scores were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank-sum test. RESULTS: We screened a total of 7777 articles and identified 42 qualitative articles. Each qualitative article was matched to 3 quantitative articles published during the same year (126 quantitative articles). Citation numbers were not statistically different between the two research types; the median number of citations (google scholar) per quantitative article was 62 (IQR 38-111) versus 58 (IQR 36-85) per qualitative article (p=0.47). Using Plum Analytics, qualitative articles were found to have a significantly higher usage, with a median of 984 (IQR 581-1351) versus 379 (IQR 177-763) for quantitative (p<0.001). The Altmetric Attention Score was higher for quantitative articles at 16 (IQR 7-37) versus qualitative articles at 9 (IQR 5-23, p=0.05), as was the Altmetric Score percentile 93 (IQR 87-96) versus 88 (IQR 76-95; p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Qualitative and quantitative articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017 both have a high impact. No article type was consistently superior in terms of bibliometric or altmetric measures, suggesting that type of article is not the major driver of impact.

An Exploratory Analysis of Spine Patients' Preoperative Concerns and Decision-making Process: Does What Surgeons Say Matter?

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, pre-post patient survey. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine what factors affect a patient's decision to undergo elective surgery following a surgical consultation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The surgical consultation is an important step in selecting and preparing patients for elective surgery. Despite the proven effectiveness and low risk of complications, many spine procedure candidates may still choose to forgo surgery after an appropriate discussion and clear surgical indications. METHODS: Survey and open-response questions regarding pre- and post-consultation surgical concerns and overall willingness to undergo surgery were collected and analyzed from 124 patients deemed surgical candidates. Demographics, surgical willingness, and patient concerns were analyzed. Open-ended response data were tallied for surgical concerns and responses were analyzed line-by-line to assess for main themes. Sub-analysis was included on patients who reconsidered their willingness post-consultation. RESULTS: Qualitative thematic analysis of patient's concerns regarding surgery uncovered six major themes: Interference on quality of life (QOL), fear, physical concerns, success, risk, and concerns regarding the surgeon (CS). Success and risk were most commonly mentioned pre-consultation (27%, 26%); risk and QOL were most commonly mentioned post-consultation (22%, 21%). Of 124 patients, 103 were willing to have surgery before consultation and remained willing post-consultation; six patients became unwilling. Twenty-one patients were unwilling to consider surgery before consultation; only five remained unwilling. No differences were found between degenerative and deformity patients regarding initial willingness or changes thereafter. CONCLUSION: The decision to undergo surgery is a multifactorial and complex process with a variety of patient concerns. We grouped these concerns into six categories to aid in future discussion with patients. 87% of patients have made up their mind before attending their surgical consultation. Appropriate understanding of patient-specific willingness and concerns should help facilitate necessary discussion and aid in a more efficient and useful shared decision-making process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.