ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2014
Acceptability of a 'guidebook' for the management of Osteoarthritis: a qualitative study of patient and clinician's perspectives.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes of guidelines from health technology assessment organizations in community-based primary care: a systematic mixed studies review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Pooled it
- How to best distribute written patient education materials among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized comparison of two strategies.BMC health services research · 2018Trial
- Implementing core NICE guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care with a model consultation (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial.Osteoarthritis and cartilage · 2018Trial
- Article
- The effect of body weight on the knee joint biomechanics based on subject-specific finite element-musculoskeletal approach.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Medical school teaching on interprofessional relationships between primary and social care to enhance communication and integration of care - a pilot study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2019Article
- Challenges and controversies of complex interventions in osteoarthritis management: recognizing inappropriate and discordant care.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2018Review
- Acceptability of a digital health intervention alongside physiotherapy to support patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Article
- GPs' attitudes, beliefs and behaviours regarding exercise for chronic knee pain: a questionnaire survey.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Patient involvement in the development of a handbook for moderate rheumatoid arthritis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWritten information can be of benefit to both practitioners and patients and the provision of quality information is emphasised as a core intervention by United Kingdom National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) OA guidelines. Researchers, patients and HCPs developed an 'OA guidebook' to provide; a) a balanced source of information for patients; b) a resource to aid practitioners when discussing self-management. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and usefulness of the OA guidebook as part of complex intervention to deliver NICE OA guidelines in General Practice.
methodsThe intervention comprises a series of consultations with GPs and practice nurses in which supported self-management is offered to patients. Eight practices in the West Midlands and North West of England were recruited to take part: four control practices and four intervention practices. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with patients (n = 29), GPs (n = 9) and practice nurses (n = 4) from the intervention practices to explore experiences of the intervention and use of the guidebook. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison of data within and across interviews.
resultsGPs thought the guidebook helped provide patients with information about OA aetiology, prognosis and self-management. Thus, it backed up key messages they provided patients during consultations. GPs also found the guidebook helped them 'close off' consultations. Nurses also thought the guidebook helped them describe OA disease processes in consultations. Patients valued the explanations of disease onset, process and prognosis. The use of 'real' people and 'real life' situations contained within the guidebook made self-management strategies seem more tangible. A sense of inclusion and comfort was obtained from knowing other people encountered similar problems and feelings.
conclusionAn OA specific written information guidebook was deemed acceptable and useful to practitioners and patients alike as part of the MOSAICS study. Findings reinforce the utility of this model of patient information as a resource to support patients living with chronic illnesses. An OA guidebook featuring a mixture of lay and professional information developed by professionals and lay people is useful and could effectively be used more widely in usual care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.