ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2020
Stakeholders' preferences for osteoarthritis interventions in health services: A cross-sectional study using multi-criteria decision analysis.
Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To combine cross-sectoral stakeholders' preferences over interventions for knee osteoarthritis (OA) with guideline recommendations and evidence about interventions, and to investigate if these preferences differ by stakeholder group. Design: A survey based on multi-criteria decision analysis was implemented whereby the stakeholders revealed the relative importance, represented as weights, of eight criteria for choosing or recommending knee OA interventions. Using data from an OA clinical guideline, 15 recommended interventions were rated on the criteria and ranked by their total scores, calculated by summing the corresponding weights. Associations between the weights and stakeholder groups were explored using regression analysis. Results: Participants comprised 58 consumers with OA, 5 Māori health advocates, 79 healthcare providers, 24 policy-informants and 12 OA-researchers (N = 178; 63% female, [mean age±SD] 54 ± 13 years). Mean weights on the eight criteria, in decreasing order of importance, are: recommendation: 19.0%; quality of evidence: 17.7%; effectiveness: 15.0%; duration of effect: 13.2%; risk of serious harm: 12.8%; risk of mild/moderate side-effects: 9.4%; cost: 6.6%; and accessibility: 6.3%. For first-, second- and third-line OA interventions respectively, all land-based exercise (total score = 71.7%), NSAIDs (topical) (74.2%) and total joint replacement (74.3%) were ranked first. At all care phases, the recommended core interventions of weight management and self-management education ranked between 11th and 15th (48.0%-56.0%). Regression analysis identified only small differences in weights (≤5.7%; p < 0.01) between stakeholder groups. Conclusions: Not all recommended core interventions are preferred by cross-sectoral stakeholders, which may represent a barrier to their uptake. Stakeholders' preferences do not appreciably differ by stakeholder group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.