Changes in Patient Preferences When Choosing a Surgeon and Hospital for Elective Hip Surgery: Ten Years Later
Article Sidebar
Published:
Jun 27, 2025
Keywords:
Elective total hip replacement, surgeon selection, hospital selection, social media
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty is one of the most successful procedures in modern medicine. Globalization, increased ac- cess to information, and the diversity of healthcare systems have driven greater public engagement in health-related decisions. Patients are increasingly seeking detailed information before undergoing arthroplasty.
Objective: To identify and analyze the factors influencing the selection of a surgeon and hospital for elective hip replacement, and how these preferences have changed over the past ten years.
Materials and Methods: Anonymous surveys were conducted among 100 patients who underwent hip replacement for osteoarthritis between 2011 and 2013. Their responses were analyzed and compared with those of 100 patients who underwent the same procedure between 2021 and 2023.
Results: In terms of surgeon selection, patient recommendations have become the most influential factor, surpassing the surgeon’s professional reputation. While the popularity of the healthcare institution remains a secondary consideration, the surgeon’s recommendation continues to be the key determinant in selecting the facility for surgery.
Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into evolving trends in patient decision-making, within a landscape increasingly influenced by digital connectivity and technological access. Understanding these changes is essential for healthcare professionals aiming to adapt their communication strategies and foster trust in an era where shared experiences play a critical role in the decision-making process.
Objective: To identify and analyze the factors influencing the selection of a surgeon and hospital for elective hip replacement, and how these preferences have changed over the past ten years.
Materials and Methods: Anonymous surveys were conducted among 100 patients who underwent hip replacement for osteoarthritis between 2011 and 2013. Their responses were analyzed and compared with those of 100 patients who underwent the same procedure between 2021 and 2023.
Results: In terms of surgeon selection, patient recommendations have become the most influential factor, surpassing the surgeon’s professional reputation. While the popularity of the healthcare institution remains a secondary consideration, the surgeon’s recommendation continues to be the key determinant in selecting the facility for surgery.
Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into evolving trends in patient decision-making, within a landscape increasingly influenced by digital connectivity and technological access. Understanding these changes is essential for healthcare professionals aiming to adapt their communication strategies and foster trust in an era where shared experiences play a critical role in the decision-making process.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
Article Details
How to Cite
Torga Spak, R., Valentini, R., Perea, A. O., Rojas Alcorta, L., Meninato, M., & Troncoso Pesoa, I. (2025). Changes in Patient Preferences When Choosing a Surgeon and Hospital for Elective Hip Surgery: Ten Years Later. Revista De La Asociación Argentina De Ortopedia Y Traumatología, 90(3), 263-276. https://doi.org/10.15417/issn.1852-7434.2025.90.3.2064
Issue
Section
Basic Research
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Ortopedia y Traumatología
Manuscript acceptance by the Journal implies the simultaneous non-submission to any other journal or publishing house. The RAAOT is under the Licencia Creative Commnos Atribución-NoComercial-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual 4.0 Internacional (CC-BY-NC.SA 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es). Articles can be shared, copied, distributed, modified, altered, transformed into a derivative work, executed and publicly communicated, provided a) the authors and the original publication (Journal, Publisher and URL) are mentioned, b) they are not used for commercial purposes, c) the same terms of the license are maintained.
In the event that the manuscript is approved for its next publication, the authors retain the copyright and will assign to the journal the rights of publication, edition, reproduction, distribution, exhibition and communication at a national and international level in the different databases. data, repositories and portals.
It is hereby stated that the mentioned manuscript has not been published and that it is not being printed in any other national or foreign journal.
The authors hereby accept the necessary modifications, suggested by the reviewers, in order to adapt the manuscript to the style and publication rules of this Journal.
References
1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007;370(9597):1508-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7
2. Patel I, Nham F, Zalikha AK, El-Othmani MM. Epidemiology of total hip arthroplasty: demographics, comorbidities and outcomes. Arthroplasty 2023;5(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-022-00156-1
3. McGlone TA, Butler ES, McGlone VL. Factors influencing consumers’ selection of a primary care physician. Health Mark Q 2002;19(3):21-37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J026v19n03_03
4. Faber M, Bosch M, Wollersheim H, Leatherman S, Grol R. Public reporting in health care: how do consumers use quality-ofcare information? A systematic review. Med Care 2009;47(1):1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181808bb5
5. Maurer TJ, Pierce HR. A comparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology 1998;83(2):324-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.324
6. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales
for measuring change in function Berman. J Chronic Dis 1987;40(12):1129-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90080-4
7. Matell MS, Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale ítems? I. Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1971;31(3):657-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447103100307
8. Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Cribb A, McCaffery K. Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25(7):741-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1292-2
9. Broom A. Medical specialists’ accounts of the impact of the Internet on the doctor/patient relationship. Health (London) 2005l;9(3):319-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459305052903
10. Iglesias B, Jeong H, Bengs BC, Sanders DP, SooHoo NF, Buerba RA. Total joint replacement surgeon choice: A qualitative analysis in a medicare population. J Natl Med Assoc 2022;113(6):693-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2021.08.037
11. Marshall DA, Deal K, Conner-Spady B, Bohm E, Hawker G, Loucks L, et al. How do patients trade-off surgeon choice and waiting times for total joint replacement: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018;26(4):522-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2018.01.008
12. Fabrizio GM, Cardillo C, Egol A, Rozell JC, Schwarzkopf R, Aggarwal VK. Factors influencing patient selection of orthopaedic surgeons for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2024;144(5):2057-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05314-5
13. Manning BT, Bohl DD, Saltzman BM, Cotter EJ, Wang KC, Epley CT, et al. Factors influencing patient selection of an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. Orthop J Sports Med 2017;5(8):2325967117724415. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117724415
14. Lu Y, Wu Y, Liu J, Li J, Zhang P. Understanding health care social media use from different stakeholder perspectives: A content analysis of an online health community. J Med Internet Res 2017;19(4):e109. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7087
15. Pai SN, Jeyaraman M, Jeyaraman N, Yadav S. White coats under fire: Understanding the epidemic of violence against doctors. Cureus 2024;16(8):e66346. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66346
16. Powell J, Pring T. The impact of social media influencers on health outcomes: Systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2024;340:116472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116472
17. Moser A, Korstjens I, van der Weijden T, Tange H. Patient’s decision making in selecting a hospital for elective orthopaedic surgery. J Eval Clin Pract 2010;16(6):1262-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01311.x
18. Al-Faifi JJ, Almuhanna NI, AlDera RM, Almohaimeed DH, Alshalan LZ, Alshaibani SK. Factors influencing decisions among the public related to the chosen surgeons for elective surgeries: A nationwide study. Surg Open Sci 2023;13:82-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sopen.2023.04.008
19. Sama AJ, Matichak DP, Schiller NC, Li DJ, Donnally CJ 3rd, Damodar D, et al. The impact of social media presence, age, and patient reported wait times on physician review websites for sports medicine surgeons. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2021;21:101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101502
20. Duymus TM, Karadeniz H, Çaçan MA, Kömür B, Demirtaş A, Zehir S, et al. Internet and social media usage of orthopaedic patients: A questionnaire-based survey. World J Orthop 2017;8(2):178-86.
https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i2.178
2. Patel I, Nham F, Zalikha AK, El-Othmani MM. Epidemiology of total hip arthroplasty: demographics, comorbidities and outcomes. Arthroplasty 2023;5(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-022-00156-1
3. McGlone TA, Butler ES, McGlone VL. Factors influencing consumers’ selection of a primary care physician. Health Mark Q 2002;19(3):21-37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J026v19n03_03
4. Faber M, Bosch M, Wollersheim H, Leatherman S, Grol R. Public reporting in health care: how do consumers use quality-ofcare information? A systematic review. Med Care 2009;47(1):1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181808bb5
5. Maurer TJ, Pierce HR. A comparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology 1998;83(2):324-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.324
6. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales
for measuring change in function Berman. J Chronic Dis 1987;40(12):1129-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90080-4
7. Matell MS, Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale ítems? I. Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1971;31(3):657-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447103100307
8. Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Cribb A, McCaffery K. Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25(7):741-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1292-2
9. Broom A. Medical specialists’ accounts of the impact of the Internet on the doctor/patient relationship. Health (London) 2005l;9(3):319-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459305052903
10. Iglesias B, Jeong H, Bengs BC, Sanders DP, SooHoo NF, Buerba RA. Total joint replacement surgeon choice: A qualitative analysis in a medicare population. J Natl Med Assoc 2022;113(6):693-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2021.08.037
11. Marshall DA, Deal K, Conner-Spady B, Bohm E, Hawker G, Loucks L, et al. How do patients trade-off surgeon choice and waiting times for total joint replacement: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018;26(4):522-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2018.01.008
12. Fabrizio GM, Cardillo C, Egol A, Rozell JC, Schwarzkopf R, Aggarwal VK. Factors influencing patient selection of orthopaedic surgeons for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2024;144(5):2057-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05314-5
13. Manning BT, Bohl DD, Saltzman BM, Cotter EJ, Wang KC, Epley CT, et al. Factors influencing patient selection of an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. Orthop J Sports Med 2017;5(8):2325967117724415. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117724415
14. Lu Y, Wu Y, Liu J, Li J, Zhang P. Understanding health care social media use from different stakeholder perspectives: A content analysis of an online health community. J Med Internet Res 2017;19(4):e109. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7087
15. Pai SN, Jeyaraman M, Jeyaraman N, Yadav S. White coats under fire: Understanding the epidemic of violence against doctors. Cureus 2024;16(8):e66346. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66346
16. Powell J, Pring T. The impact of social media influencers on health outcomes: Systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2024;340:116472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116472
17. Moser A, Korstjens I, van der Weijden T, Tange H. Patient’s decision making in selecting a hospital for elective orthopaedic surgery. J Eval Clin Pract 2010;16(6):1262-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01311.x
18. Al-Faifi JJ, Almuhanna NI, AlDera RM, Almohaimeed DH, Alshalan LZ, Alshaibani SK. Factors influencing decisions among the public related to the chosen surgeons for elective surgeries: A nationwide study. Surg Open Sci 2023;13:82-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sopen.2023.04.008
19. Sama AJ, Matichak DP, Schiller NC, Li DJ, Donnally CJ 3rd, Damodar D, et al. The impact of social media presence, age, and patient reported wait times on physician review websites for sports medicine surgeons. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2021;21:101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101502
20. Duymus TM, Karadeniz H, Çaçan MA, Kömür B, Demirtaş A, Zehir S, et al. Internet and social media usage of orthopaedic patients: A questionnaire-based survey. World J Orthop 2017;8(2):178-86.
https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i2.178