Indian journal of orthopaedics
May 7, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Decision-Making in the Choice of Orthopedic Surgeons for Surgery from a Patient and Family Perspective-A Scoping Review.
Bhattacharya S, Kumar V, Richa, Raj V, Barik S.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
Patients choose orthopedic surgeons mainly on experience and communication, with referrals, finances, culture and online information also shaping the decision.
What was studied
A scoping review of 26 studies (2000-2024) on factors influencing patient and family selection of orthopedic surgeons.
Key findings
- Six themes: surgeon attributes, referral networks, institutional reputation, financial constraints, digital influences and family/cultural dynamics
- Experience and interpersonal communication were consistently prioritized
- In collectivist societies, families often dominated decisions
Clinical relevance
It highlights the importance of communication and transparency.
Who should care
Limitations
Mixed-methods studies of varied settings in a narrative synthesis.
Invest in clear communication and accurate online information, and involve families in decisions where appropriate.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Background
Choosing an orthopedic surgeon is a pivotal decision shaped by clinical competence and multiple non-clinical influences. While surgical expertise and outcomes are fundamental considerations, patients and their families also weigh communication quality, cultural alignment, institutional reputation, financial constraints, and increasingly, digital information sources. Understanding these determinants is crucial to delivering patient-centered orthopedic care.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were systematically searched for English-language studies published between January 2000 and March 2024 that explored personal, social, institutional, financial, cultural, psychological, or digital factors influencing surgeon selection. Eligible designs included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data using a standardized form, and synthesized findings narratively across thematic domains.
Results
Of 1,245 records identified, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six thematic domains emerged: (1) surgeon-specific attributes such as experience, certification, empathy, and gender; (2) referral networks and peer recommendations; (3) institutional reputation and perceived care quality; (4) financial and insurance constraints; (5) digital influences including online reviews and social media; and (6) familial and cultural dynamics. Surgeon experience and interpersonal communication were consistently prioritized, while referral pathways strongly guided decision-making. Financial and geographic barriers limited choice, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Digital platforms increasingly shaped perceptions, though concerns about reliability persisted. Family members often dominated decision-making in collectivist societies.
Conclusion
Patients' and families' choices of orthopedic surgeons are multifactorial, reflecting an interplay of technical expertise, relational trust, financial considerations, cultural context, and digital engagement. Enhancing transparency, fostering culturally sensitive communication, addressing systemic and financial barriers, and improving the reliability of digital resources can better support informed, equitable, and patient-centered surgical decision-making.
Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-026-01816-z.
DOI
10.1007/s43465-026-01816-z
PMID
42824592
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed