ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2026
Perceptions of healthcare professionals in rheumatology on the use of prediction models in clinical practice.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Prediction models are increasingly developed to aid decision-making in RA, but none are currently included in guidelines. The aim of this study was to explore rheumatology healthcare professionals' perceptions of using prediction models in everyday clinical practice. Methods: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with rheumatologists and nurse practitioners involved in RA care in the Netherlands. Participants were purposively sampled based on work experience, academic degree, profession and care setting. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically following Braun and Clarke's framework. Results: Fifteen interviews uncovered for overarching themes. First, building support for prediction models depended on trust, awareness, understanding of model inputs and limitations, perceived clinical usefulness, evidence and cost-effectiveness. Second, making prediction models workable in routine care required integration into electronic health records, minimal additional workload, reliance on routinely collected data and actionable outputs. Third, healthcare professionals (HCPs) positioned prediction models within clinical judgement and patient care: models were considered valuable when supporting, rather than replacing, professional judgement and shared decision-making, while helping to communicate uncertainty and clarify difficult decisions. Fourth, HCPs anticipated consequences for care organization, medication use, professional autonomy and personalized care, including concerns about misuse by external parties, compulsion and unintended workload or loss of patient visibility. Conclusion: Rheumatology healthcare professionals value prediction models, but only if they are interpretable, clearly beneficial, integrated into workflows and protect professional autonomy. Addressing these concerns is essential for turning models into useful clinical decision tools.
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.