Racial differences in expectations of joint replacement surgery outcomes

Philadelphia VAMC, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4155, USA.
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 7.87). 05/2008; 59(5):730-7. DOI: 10.1002/art.23565
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prior studies have indicated racial differences in patients' expectations for joint replacement surgery outcomes. The goal of this study was to measure these differences using a well-validated survey instrument and to determine if the differences could be explained by racial variation in disease severity, socioeconomic factors, literacy, or trust.
Detailed demographic, clinical, psychological, and social data were collected from 909 male patients (450 African American, 459 white) ages 50-79 years with moderate or severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee receiving primary care at 2 veterans affairs medical centers. The previously validated Joint Replacement Expectations Survey was used to assess expectations for pain relief, functional improvement, and psychological well-being after joint replacement.
Among knee OA patients (n = 627), the unadjusted mean expectation score (scale 0-76) for African American patients was 48.7 versus 53.6 for white patients (mean difference 4.9, P < 0.001). For hip OA patients (n = 282), the unadjusted mean expectation score (scale 0-72) for African Americans was 45.4 versus 51.5 for whites (mean difference 6.1, P < 0.001). Multivariable adjustment for disease severity, socioeconomic factors, education, social support, literacy, and trust reduced these racial differences to 3.8 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2, 6.3) among knee OA patients and 4.2 points (95% CI 0.4, 8.0) among hip patients.
Among potential candidates for joint replacement, African American patients have significantly lower expectations for surgical outcomes than white patients. This difference is not entirely explained by racial differences in demographics, disease severity, education, income, social support, or trust.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ContextThe literature on disparities in health care has examined the contrast between white patients receiving needed care, compared with racial/ethnic minority patients not receiving needed care. Racial/ethnic differences in the overuse of care, that is, unneeded care that does not improve patients’ outcomes, have received less attention. We systematically reviewed the literature regarding race/ethnicity and the overuse of care.Methods We searched the Medline database for US studies that included at least 2 racial/ethnic groups and that examined the association between race/ethnicity and the overuse of procedures, diagnostic (care) or therapeutic care. In a recent review, we identified studies of overuse by race/ethnicity, and we also examined reference lists of retrieved articles. We then abstracted and evaluated this information, including the population studied, data source, sample size and assembly, type of care, guideline or appropriateness standard, controls for clinical confounding and financing of care, and findings.FindingsWe identified 59 unique studies, of which 11 had a low risk of methodological bias. Studies with multiple outcomes were counted more than once; collectively they assessed 74 different outcomes. Thirty-two studies, 6 with low risks of bias (LRoB), provided evidence that whites received more inappropriate or nonrecommended care than racial/ethnic minorities did. Nine studies (2 LRoB) found evidence of more overuse of care by minorities than by whites. Thirty-three studies (6 LRoB) found no relationship between race/ethnicity and overuse.Conclusions Although the overuse of care is not invariably associated with race/ethnicity, when it was, a substantial proportion of studies found greater overuse of care among white patients. Clinicians and researchers should try to understand how and why race/ethnicity might be associated with overuse and to intervene to reduce it.
    Milbank Quarterly 03/2015; 93(1). DOI:10.1111/1468-0009.12107 · 5.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with higher socioeconomic status (SES) are shown to have better total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes compared to those with lower SES. The relationship between SES and factors that influence TKA use is understudied. We examined the association between SES and pain, function and pain catastrophizing at presentation for TKA. In patients undergoing TKA at an academic center, we obtained preoperative pain and functional status (WOMAC Index 0-100, 100 worst), pain catastrophizing (PCS, ≥16 high), and mental health (MHI-5, <68 poor). We described individual-level SES using education as a proxy, and area-level SES using a validated composite index linking geocoded addresses to U.S. Census data. We measured associations between these indicators and pain, function and pain catastrophizing, adjusting for age, sex and BMI. Among 316 patients, mean age was 65.9 (SD 8.7), 59% were female, and 88% were Caucasian; 17% achieved less than college education and 62% were college graduates. The median area SES index score was 59 (U.S. median 51). Bivariable analyses demonstrated associations between higher individual- and area-level SES and lower pain, higher function and less pain catastrophizing (all p<0.05). Adjusted analyses demonstrated statistically significant associations between higher individual- and area-level SES and better function and less pain. In this cohort, patients with higher individual- and area-level SES had lower pain and higher function at the time of TKA than lower SES patients. Further research is needed to assess what constitutes appropriate levels of pain and function to undergo TKA in these higher SES groups.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12/2015; 16(1). DOI:10.1186/s12891-015-0475-8 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior investigations have suggested that physician-related factors may contribute to differential use of TKA among women and ethnic minorities. We sought to evaluate the effect of surgeon bias on recommendations for TKA.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 10/2014; 473(2). DOI:10.1007/s11999-014-4003-1 · 2.88 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 3, 2014