ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2026
Evaluation of the usability of and engagement with an osteoarthritis e-learning program developed for healthcare professionals.
Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to describe the development and evaluation of an OA eLearning program for healthcare professionals. The evaluation objectives were to measure the usability of, and engagement with, this program and assess the perceived feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness and user satisfaction among OA healthcare professionals. Methods: A feasibility study was conducted, involving registered healthcare professionals, who regularly manage people with OA. Following baseline questionnaires, participants were asked to complete at least four OA eLearning modules over 10 weeks, followed by a 23-item evaluation questionnaire. The primary outcomes were usability and engagement with the OA eLearning program. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and satisfaction. Results: The 31 eligible participants reflected a broad range of professional experiences, nationalities and settings. Program usability, engagement with content, navigation, presentation and overall satisfaction were rated as either very good or good by at least 84% of participants. Participants considered the program to be acceptable, feasible, and appropriate, with some areas for improvement in navigating the program. Conclusions: The OA eLearning program shows promise in supporting healthcare professionals to deliver evidence-based care. While the findings from this study will inform a randomised trial, the OA eLearning program is well positioned to enhance clinical education and practice.
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.