A Delphi Survey of Healthcare Providers’ Perspectives on Patient Involvement and Satisfaction in Surgical Decision-Making in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)
Abstract
Background, methodology, findings and implications from this multinational Delphi survey.
Patient involvement in surgical decision-making is increasingly recognized as a cornerstone of patient-centered care, yet evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains limited. Understanding healthcare providers’ perceptions of patient participation, satisfaction, and the role of technology in these settings is essential to inform practice and policy.
A Delphi survey was conducted on The Operating Room Global (TORG) platform with 184 healthcare professionals, including surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists and allied staff from 12 LMICs. The survey explored frequency, challenges and determinants of patient involvement in surgical decision-making, as well as satisfaction levels and technology utilization. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative responses underwent narrative analysis.
Most respondents reported frequent patient involvement in surgical decision-making (34.6% often; 31.4% very often). Important influencing factors included physician recommendations (59.1%), treatment options (61.0%), and patients’ medical history (54.6%). Major barriers included lack of patient education materials (63.0%), time constraints (57.1%), language barriers (50.7%), and cultural differences (50.7%).
Preoperative counseling was the predominant method used to assess patient understanding (86.4%), whereas decision aids were underutilized (36.6%). Patient satisfaction was generally positive, with 67.9% reporting satisfied or very satisfied experiences, although 30.6% reported neutral or negative experiences. Online resources (45.1%) and telemedicine (16.4%) emerged as technology facilitators of patient engagement.
Patient involvement in surgical decision-making is valued but inconsistently practiced across LMICs. Addressing language and cultural gaps, expanding educational resources, and integrating decision aids and digital health tools may enhance patient-centered surgical care and patient satisfaction.
Healthcare professionals completing the survey.
Multinational representation across low- and middle-income settings.
Respondents reporting patients were involved often or very often.
Reported patient satisfaction with decision-making experiences.
Citation Metrics
Citation counts are retrieved automatically from independent scholarly databases. Counts are shown separately because indexing coverage and citation matching differ between platforms.
Citations reported through the Crossref scholarly metadata network.
Loading…Citations indexed by the OpenAlex scholarly knowledge graph.
Loading…Citation Generator
Select a referencing style, copy the citation directly, or export this article for use with reference-management software.
Contributor Statement
All authors equally contributed to the study and approved the final manuscript.
Conflict of Interest & Funding
Conflict of Interest:
No conflict of interest.
Funding:
No funding received by the authors.
Ethical Approval & Consent
Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of The Operating Room Global (Ref. No. TORG/IRB/001/2025). Participation was voluntary, responses were anonymized, and informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants.
Multinational Delphi Survey
The study used an online Delphi survey hosted on the TORG platform. More than 1,000 invitations were distributed and 184 respondents completed the survey across 12 LMICs. Quantitative responses were analysed descriptively and open-ended responses underwent narrative analysis.
Study Support
The authors thank the members and leadership of The Operating Room Global (TORG) for their support and participation and extend appreciation to all healthcare professionals who contributed to the study.
Editorial Timeline
Licence & Article Record
This article is published by
The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ)
under the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).
Persistent DOI:
10.64573/torgj2507003
Published Version
The final published article is available as a ten-page full-text PDF linked directly from this article record and through the persistent DOI.
Semantic Scholar
This article has a Semantic Scholar record.
View on Semantic Scholar ↗
Access the Published Article
Read the official full-text publication, access the persistent DOI record, or return to Volume 1, Issue 1.