Does a Patient-centered Educational Intervention Affect African-American Access to Knee Replacement? A Randomized TrialVina, Ernest, R., MD, MS1,a; Richardson, Diane, PhD2; Medvedeva, Elina, MS2; Kwoh, Kent, C., MD1; Collier, Aliya, BS3; Ibrahim, Said, A., MD, MPH2,3
Background A TKA is the most effective and cost-effective surgical option for moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Yet, black patients are less willing to undergo knee replacement surgery than white patients. Decision aids help people understand treatment options and consider the personal importance of possible benefits and harms of treatments, including TKA.
Questions/purposes We asked: (1) Does a patient-centered intervention consisting of a decision aid for knee OA and motivational interviewing improve the proportion of referrals of blacks with knee OA to orthopaedic surgery? (2) Does the intervention increase patients’ willingness to undergo TKA?
Methods Adults who self-identified as black who were at least 50 years old with moderate to severe knee OA were enrolled from urban primary care clinics in a two-group randomized, controlled trial. A total of 1253 patients were screened for eligibility, and 760 were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, declining to participate, or other reasons. Four hundred ninety-three patients were randomized and completed the intervention; three had missing referral data at followup. The mean age of the patients was 61 years, and 51% were women. The majority had an annual household income less than USD 15,000. Participants in the treatment group were shown a decision-aid video and had a brief session with a trained counselor in motivational interviewing. Participants in the control group received an educational booklet about OA that did not mention joint replacement. The two groups had comparable demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The primary outcome was referral to orthopaedic surgery 12 months after treatment exposure. Receipt of referral was defined as the receipt of a recommendation or prescription from a primary care provider for orthopaedic evaluation. The secondary outcome was change in patient willingness to undergo TKA based on patient self-report.
Results The odds of receiving a referral to orthopaedic surgery did not differ between the two study groups (36%, 90 of 253 of the control group; 32%, 76 of 240 of the treatment group; odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.18; p = 0.277). At 2 weeks followup, there was no difference between the treatment and the control groups in terms of increased willingness to consider TKA relative to baseline (34%, 67 of 200 patients in the treatment group; 33%, 68 of 208 patients in the control group; OR, 1.06; p = 0.779). At 12 months followup, the percent increase in willingness to undergo TKA still did not differ between patients in the treatment and control groups (29%, 49 of 174 in the treatment group; 27%, 51 of 191 in the control group; OR, 1.10; p = 0.679).
Conclusion A combination decision aid and motivational interviewing strategy was no better than an educational pamphlet in improving patients’ preferences toward joint replacement surgery for knee OA. The type of intervention treatment also did not affect access to surgical evaluation. Other tools that target patient knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding surgical treatments for OA may be further developed and tested in the future.
Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.