Factors Influencing Patient Selection of an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Physician.

Blaine T Manning, Daniel D Bohl, Bryan M Saltzman, Eric J Cotter, Kevin C Wang, Chad T Epley, Nikhil N Verma, Brian J Cole, Bernard R Bach
Author Information
  1. Blaine T Manning: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  2. Daniel D Bohl: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  3. Bryan M Saltzman: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  4. Eric J Cotter: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  5. Kevin C Wang: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  6. Chad T Epley: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  7. Nikhil N Verma: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  8. Brian J Cole: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  9. Bernard R Bach: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The rise in consumer-centric health insurance plans has increased the importance of the patient in choosing a provider. There is a paucity of studies that examine how patients select an orthopaedic sports medicine physician.
PURPOSE: To evaluate factors that patients consider when choosing an orthopaedic sports medicine physician.
STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS: A total of 1077 patients who sought treatment by 3 sports medicine physicians were administered an anonymous questionnaire. The questionnaire included 19 questions asking respondents to rate the importance of specific factors regarding the selection of orthopaedic sports medicine physicians on a scale of 1 (not important at all) to 10 (very important). The remaining 6 questions were multiple-choice and regarded the following criteria: preferred physician age, appointment availability, clinic waiting room times, travel distance, and medical student/resident involvement.
RESULTS: Of the 1077 consecutive patients administered the survey, 382 (35%) responded. Of these, 59% (n = 224) were male, and 41% (n = 158) were female. In ranking the 19 criteria in terms of importance, patients rated board certification (9.12 ± 1.88), being well known for a specific area of expertise (8.27 ± 2.39), and in-network provider status (8.13 ± 2.94) as the 3 most important factors in selecting an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. Radio, television, and Internet advertisements were rated the least important. Regarding physician age, 63% of patients would consider seeking a physician who is ≤65 years old. Approximately 78% of patients would consider seeking a different physician if no appointments were available within 4 weeks.
CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that board certification, being well known for a specific area of expertise, and health insurance in-network providers may be the most important factors influencing patient selection of an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. Advertisements were least important to patients. Patient preferences varied regarding ideal physician age, clinic appointment availability, medical student/resident involvement, and travel distance in choosing an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. In the context of health care delivery and as reimbursement becomes increasingly consumer centered, understanding the process of provider selection is important.

Keywords

References

  1. Surgery. 2002 Oct;132(4):663-70; discussion 670-2 [PMID: 12407351]
  2. Health Mark Q. 1994;12(2):29-42 [PMID: 10141082]
  3. J Athl Train. 2007 Apr-Jun;42(2):311-9 [PMID: 17710181]
  4. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jun;471(6):1865-72 [PMID: 23065331]
  5. J Pediatr. 2010 May;156(5):841-5, 845.e1 [PMID: 20138304]
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 29;15(8):e185 [PMID: 23988296]
  7. Health Serv Res. 2003 Apr;38(2):711-32 [PMID: 12785569]
  8. J Med Internet Res. 2009 Feb 20;11(1):e4 [PMID: 19275980]
  9. Aesthet Surg J. 2013 May;33(4):585-90 [PMID: 23486865]
  10. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jul 1;38(15):1288-93 [PMID: 23532118]
  11. Ann Surg. 2006 Sep;244(3):353-62 [PMID: 16926561]
  12. Med Care Res Rev. 2010 Feb;67(1):27-37 [PMID: 19638641]
  13. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Feb 15;27(4):423-7 [PMID: 11840110]
  14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Jul 1;41(13):E814-E819 [PMID: 26656051]
  15. J Health Econ. 2016 Mar;46:33-51 [PMID: 26851386]
  16. Health Econ. 2012 Jun;21 Suppl 1:33-55 [PMID: 22556001]
  17. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Feb 28;7:31 [PMID: 17328807]
  18. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 7;362(1):6-7 [PMID: 20054044]
  19. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May;27(5):659-66.e5 [PMID: 22035977]
  20. BMJ. 2009 Mar 17;338:b1033 [PMID: 19293224]
  21. Res Brief. 2008 Dec;(9):1-8 [PMID: 19054900]
  22. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Feb 24;14(1):e38 [PMID: 22366336]
  23. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):402-11 [PMID: 18975041]
  24. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(3):49-51 [PMID: 24592843]
  25. Ann Fam Med. 2004 May-Jun;2(3):245-52 [PMID: 15209202]
  26. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 May;31(5):1009-15 [PMID: 22566440]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0physiciansportspatientsmedicineimportantorthopaedicfactorshealthimportancechoosingproviderconsiderspecificselectionagemedical±insurancepatient410773physiciansadministeredquestionnaire19questionsregarding1appointmentavailabilityclinictraveldistancestudent/residentinvolvementn=ratedboardcertificationwellknownareaexpertise82in-networkleastseekingPatientaspectsBACKGROUND:riseconsumer-centricplansincreasedpaucitystudiesexamineselectPURPOSE:evaluateSTUDYDESIGN:CaseseriesLevelevidenceMETHODS:totalsoughttreatmentanonymousincludedaskingrespondentsratescale10remaining6multiple-choiceregardedfollowingcriteria:preferredwaitingroomtimesRESULTS:consecutivesurvey38235%responded59%224male41%158femalerankingcriteriaterms912882739status1394selectingRadiotelevisionInternetadvertisementsRegarding63%≤65yearsoldApproximately78%differentappointmentsavailablewithinweeksCONCLUSION:studyresultssuggestprovidersmayinfluencingAdvertisementspreferencesvariedidealcontextcaredeliveryreimbursementbecomesincreasinglyconsumercenteredunderstandingprocessFactorsInfluencingSelectionOrthopaedicSportsMedicinePhysicianeconomicdecisionanalysisgeneraltraumapsychologicalsport

Similar Articles

Cited By