A Delphi Survey of Healthcare Providers’ Perspectives on Patient Involvement and Satisfaction in Surgical Decision-Making in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)

The Operating Room Global Journal · Volume 1 · Issue 1
Original Research

A Delphi Survey of Healthcare Providers’ Perspectives on Patient Involvement and Satisfaction in Surgical Decision-Making in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)

Authors

Adebusola Adenike Owokole1*; Gaston Nyirigira1,2,4*; Johnson Ogundare1*; Asjed Sanaullah1,3*

1 The Operating Room Global (TORG).

2 King Faisal Hospital Rwanda (KFHR), Kigali, Rwanda.

3 King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.

4 Africa Health Sciences University, Kigali, Rwanda.

Corresponding Authors
Adebusola Adenike Owokole Gaston Nyirigira Johnson Ogundare Asjed Sanaullah

Abstract

Background, methodology, findings and implications from this multinational Delphi survey.

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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%).

Engagement & Satisfaction

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.

Conclusion

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.

Participants 184

Healthcare professionals completing the survey.

Countries 12 LMICs

Multinational representation across low- and middle-income settings.

Frequent Involvement 66.0%

Respondents reporting patients were involved often or very often.

Satisfied / Very Satisfied 67.9%

Reported patient satisfaction with decision-making experiences.

Patient Involvement
Surgical Decision-Making
Patient Satisfaction
Decision Aids
Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Delphi Survey

Citation Metrics

Citation counts are retrieved automatically from independent scholarly databases. Counts are shown separately because indexing coverage and citation matching differ between platforms.

Crossref

Citations reported through the Crossref scholarly metadata network.

Loading…
OpenAlex

Citations indexed by the OpenAlex scholarly knowledge graph.

Loading…
Semantic Scholar ↗

Citations indexed by the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph.

Loading…
Citation counts are intentionally not combined. The same citing publication may be indexed by more than one scholarly database, and individual services differ in coverage, update frequency and matching. Citation data loading…

Citation Generator

Select a referencing style, copy the citation directly, or export this article for use with reference-management software.

Authors’ Contributions

Contributor Statement

All authors equally contributed to the study and approved the final manuscript.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest & Funding

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest.

Funding: No funding received by the authors.

Research Ethics

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.

Study Design

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.

Acknowledgement

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.

Article History

Editorial Timeline

Received 12 July 2025
Accepted 29 September 2025
Available Online 17 October 2025
Open Access

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

Full-Text Record

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.

Scholarly Indexing

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.