Treatment Invasiveness and Illness Perceptions Are Strongly Associated With Outcome Expectations in Patients Treated for Hand or Wrist Conditions: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that more-positive outcome expectations are associated with better treatment outcomes. Although this has not been shown to represent a causal relationship, there nonetheless is an interest in positively modifying outcome expectations to improve treatment outcomes. However, little is known about what is independently associated with outcome expectations in clinical practice. For example, it is unknown to what extent expectations are associated with treatment or patient characteristics such as sociodemographics or with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on patient perceptions of physical or mental health or illness. Studying factors associated with outcome expectations may provide relevant information for clinicians and researchers aiming to improve outcome expectations. Improving expectations might, in turn, improve treatment outcomes. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Which factors (that is, sociodemographics, PROMs, illness perceptions, treatment, surgeon, and location) are independently associated with outcome expectations in patients with hand or wrist conditions? METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Between July 2018 and December 2021, we screened 21,327 patients with a diagnosed hand or wrist condition with complete baseline sociodemographic data such as age and workload. Sixty percent (12,765 of 21,327) of patients completed all relevant PROMs. We excluded patients receiving rare treatments, leaving 58% (12,345 of 21,327) for inclusion in the final sample. Those who participated were more often scheduled for surgical treatment and had higher expectations. We performed a multilevel analysis involving two steps. First, we evaluated whether patients receiving the same treatment, being counseled by the same surgeon, or being treated at the same location have more similar outcome expectations. We found that only patients receiving the same treatment had more similar outcome expectations. Therefore, we used a multilevel regression model to account for this correlation within treatments, and added treatment characteristics (such as nonsurgical versus minor or major surgery) to potential explanatory factors. Second, in the multilevel hierarchical regression analysis, we added sociodemographics (Model 1), PROMs for physical and mental health (Model 2), illness perceptions (Model 3), and treatment characteristics (most-definitive model) to assess the explained variance in outcome expectations per step and the relative association with outcome expectations. RESULTS: Sociodemographic factors such as age and workload explained 1% of the variance in outcome expectations. An additional 2% was explained by baseline PROMs for physical and mental health, 9% by illness perceptions, and 18% by treatment characteristics, resulting in an explained variance of 29% of the most-definitive model. A large number of patient and treatment characteristics were associated with outcome expectations. We used standardized betas to compare the magnitude of the effect of the different continuous and categorical variables. Among the associated variables, minor surgery (standardized beta [ß] = 0.56 [95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.68]; p < 0.001) and major surgery (ß = 0.61 [95% CI 0.49 to 0.73]; p < 0.001) had the strongest positive association with outcome expectations (receiving surgery is associated with higher outcome expectations than nonsurgical treatment). A longer illness duration expected by the patient (-0.23 [95% CI -0.24 to -0.21]; p < 0.001) and being treated for the same condition as before (-0.08 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.03]; p = 0.003) had the strongest negative association with outcome expectations. CONCLUSION: Outcome expectations are mainly associated with the invasiveness of the treatment and by patients' illness perceptions; patients before surgical treatment have more positive expectations of the treatment outcome than patients before nonsurgical treatment, even after accounting for differences in clinical and psychosocial profiles. In addition, patients with a more-positive perception of their illness had more-positive expectations of their treatment. Our findings suggest expectation management should be tailored to the specific treatment (such as surgical versus nonsurgical) and the specific patient (including their perception of their illness). It may be more beneficial to test and implement expectation management strategies for nonsurgical treatments such as physical therapy than for surgical treatments, given that our findings indicate a greater need to do so. An additional advantage of such a strategy is that successful interventions may prevent converting to surgical interventions, which is a goal of the stepped-care principles of standard care. Future studies might investigate the causality of the association between pretreatment expectations and outcomes by performing an experimental study such as a randomized controlled trial, in which boosting expectations is compared with usual care in nonsurgical and surgical groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Which Factors Are Associated With Satisfaction With Treatment Results in Patients With Hand and Wrist Conditions? A Large Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Satisfaction with treatment results is an important outcome domain in striving for patient-centered and value-based healthcare. Although numerous studies have investigated factors associated with satisfaction with treatment results, most studies used relatively small samples. Additionally, many studies have only investigated univariable associations instead of multivariable associations; to our knowledge, none have investigated the independent association of baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, improvement in pain and function, experiences with healthcare delivery, and baseline measures of mental health with satisfaction with treatment results. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What factors are independently associated with satisfaction with treatment results at 3 months post-treatment in patients treated for common hand and wrist conditions? (2) What factors are independently associated with the willingness to undergo the treatment again at 3 months post-treatment in patients treated for common hand and wrist conditions? Among the factors under study were baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, improvement in pain and function, experiences with healthcare delivery, and baseline measures of mental health. METHODS: Between August 2018 and May 2020, we included patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, nonsurgical or surgical treatment for thumb-base osteoarthritis, trigger finger release, limited fasciectomy for Dupuytren contracture, or nonsurgical treatment for midcarpal laxity in one of the 28 centers of Xpert Clinics in the Netherlands. We screened 5859 patients with complete sociodemographics and data at baseline. Thirty-eight percent (2248 of 5859) of these patients had complete data at 3 months. Finally, participants were eligible for inclusion if they provided a relevant answer to the three patient-reported experience measure (PREM) items. A total of 424 patients did not do this because they answered "I don't know" or "not applicable" to a PREM item, leaving 31% (1824 of 5859) for inclusion in the final sample. A validated Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire was administered at 3 months, which identified the patients' level of satisfaction with treatment results so far on a 5-point Likert scale (research question 1, with answers of poor, moderate, fair, good, or excellent) and the patients' willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (research question 2, with answers of yes or no). A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify whether baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, change in outcome (patient-reported outcome measures for hand function and pain), baseline measures of mental health (including treatment credibility [the extent to which a patient attributes credibility to a treatment] and expectations, illness perception, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression), and PREMs were associated with each question of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire at 3 months post-treatment. We dichotomized responses to our first question as good and excellent, which were considered more satisfied, and poor, moderate, and fair, which were considered less satisfied. After dichotomization, 57% (1042 of 1824) of patients were classified as more satisfied with the treatment results. RESULTS: The following variables were independently associated with satisfaction with treatment results, with an area under the curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.84) (arranged from the largest to the smallest standardized odds ratio [SOR]): greater decrease in pain during physical load (standardized odds ratio 2.52 [95% CI 2.18 to 2.92]; p < 0.001), patient's positive experience with the explanation of the pros and cons of the treatment (determined with the question: "Have you been explained the pros and cons of the treatment or surgery?") (SOR 1.83 [95% CI 1.41 to 2.38]; p < 0.001), greater improvement in hand function (SOR 1.76 [95% CI 1.54 to 2.01]; p < 0.001), patients' positive experience with the advice for at-home care (determined with the question: "Were you advised by the healthcare providers on how to deal with your illness or complaints in your home situation?") (SOR 1.57 [95% CI 1.21 to 2.04]; p < 0.001), patient's better personal control (determined with the question: "How much control do you feel you have over your illness?") (SOR 1.24 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.40]; p < 0.001), patient's more positive treatment expectations (SOR 1.23 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.46]; p = 0.02), longer expected illness duration by the patient (SOR 1.20 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.37]; p = 0.01), a smaller number of symptoms the patient saw as part of the illness (SOR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.97]; p = 0.02), and less concern about the illness the patient experiences (SOR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.99]; p = 0.04). For willingness to undergo the treatment again, the following variables were independently associated with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.83) (arranged from the largest to the smallest standardized OR): patient's positive experience with the information about the pros and cons (determined with the question: "Have you been explained the pros and cons of the treatment or surgery?") (SOR 2.05 [95% CI 1.50 to 2.80]; p < 0.001), greater improvement in hand function (SOR 1.80 [95% CI 1.54 to 2.11]; p < 0.001), greater decrease in pain during physical load (SOR 1.74 [95% CI 1.48 to 2.07]; p < 0.001), patient's positive experience with the advice for at home (determined with the question: "Were you advised by the healthcare providers on how to deal with your illness or complaints in your home situation?") (SOR 1.52 [95% CI 1.11 to 2.07]; p = 0.01), patient's positive experience with shared decision-making (determined with the question: "Did you decide together with the care providers which care or treatment you will receive?") (SOR 1.45 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.99]; p = 0.02), higher credibility the patient attributes to the treatment (SOR 1.44 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.73]; p < 0.001), longer symptom duration (SOR 1.27 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.52]; p < 0.01), and patient's better understanding of the condition (SOR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.34]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that to directly improve satisfaction with treatment results, clinicians might seek to: (1) improve the patient's experience with healthcare delivery, (2) try to influence illness perception, and (3) boost treatment expectations and credibility. Future research should confirm whether these suggestions are valid and perhaps also investigate whether satisfaction with treatment results can be predicted (instead of explained, as was done in this study). Such prediction models, as well as other decision support tools that investigate patient-specific needs, may influence experience with healthcare delivery, expectations, or illness perceptions, which in turn may improve satisfaction with treatment results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Surgical stabilization for symptomatic carpometacarpal hypermobility; a randomized comparison of a dorsal and a volar technique and a cohort of the volar technique.

BACKGROUND: Hypermobility of the first carpometacarpal joint is mostly surgically treated with a volar approached stabilization by Eaton, but recent studies indicate the importance of the dorsoradial and intermetacarpal ligaments (DRL and IML) for carpometacarpal joint stability. The aim of this study was to compare a dorsal and volar technique for primary carpometacarpal hypermobility regarding pain and functional outcome. METHODS: Patients with non-degenerative, painful carpometacarpal hypermobility were included and were randomly assigned to either the volar technique using the FCR, or a dorsal technique using the ECRL. After premature termination of the trial, we followed all patients treated with the volar approach. Pain, strength, and ADL function using DASH and Michigan Hand Questionnaires (MHQ) were measured at baseline and 3 and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: After including 16 patients, the randomized trial comparing the volar and dorsal technique was terminated because of significant increased pain in the dorsal group. Although none of the other outcome measures were significant in the underpowered comparison, in line with the pain scores, all variables showed a trend towards a worse outcome in the dorsal group. Between 2009 and 2012, 57 thumbs were surgically stabilized. We found significant better pain and MHQ scores, and after 1 year improved grip and key pinch strength. Patients returned to work within 8 (±7) weeks, of which 85 % in their original job. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical stabilization of the thumb is an effective method for patients suffering from hypermobility regarding pain, daily function, and strength. We recommend a volar approach. Level of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study.