ArticleBMJ open2020
Use of the nominal group technique to identify UK stakeholder views of the measures and domains used in the assessment of therapeutic exercise adherence for patients with musculoskeletal disorders.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimising physiotherapy for people with lateral elbow tendinopathy - Results of a mixed-methods pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial (OPTimisE).Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2024Trial
- Identifying key outcome domains with underlying specific patient-reported outcomes for psychomotor therapy in mental health care in the Netherlands: a multi-phased qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Exploring the preferences of multiple stakeholder groups for family involvement in early intervention services for psychosis: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Older adults, clinicians, and researchers' preferences for measuring adherence to resistance and balance exercises.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Consensus-Based Development of an Assessment Tool: A Methodology for Patient Engagement in Primary Care and CPD Research.The Journal of continuing education in the health professions · 2022Article
- Identifying priorities for the collection and use of data related to community first response and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: protocol for a nominal group technique study.HRB open research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective was to the undertake nominal group technique (NGT) to evaluate current exercise adherence measures and isolated domains to develop stakeholder consensus on the domains to include in the measurement of therapeutic exercise adherence for patients with musculoskeletal disorders.
designA 1-day NGT workshop was convened. Six exercise adherence measures were presented to the group that were identified in our recent systematic review. Discussions considered these measures and isolated domains of exercise adherence. Following discussions, consensus voting identified stakeholder agreement on the suitability of the six offered adherence measures and the inclusion of isolated domains of exercise adherence in future measurement.
settingOne stakeholder NGT workshop held in Sheffield, UK.
participantsKey stakeholders from the UK were invited to participate from four identified populations. 14 participants represented patients, clinicians, researchers and service managers.
resultsAll six exercise adherence measures were deemed not appropriate for use in clinical research or routine practice with no measure reaching 70% group agreement for suitability, relevance, acceptability or appropriateness. Three measures were deemed feasible to use in clinical practice. 25 constructs of exercise adherence did reach consensus threshold and were supported to be included as domains in the future measurement of exercise adherence.
conclusionA mixed UK-based stakeholder group felt these six measures of exercise adherence were unacceptable. Differences in opinion within the stakeholder group highlighted the lack of consensus as to what should be measured, the type of assessment that is required and whose perspective should be sought when assessing exercise adherence. Previously unused domains may be needed alongside current ones, from both a clinician's and patient's perspective, to gain understanding and to inform future measurement development. Further conceptualisation of exercise adherence is required from similar mixed stakeholder groups in various socioeconomic and cultural populations.
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.