Trial reportBMJ open2023
Experience of patients and physiotherapists within the AFTER pilot randomised trial of two rehabilitation interventions for people aged 50 years and over post ankle fracture: a qualitative study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the utility of a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) end-of-trial event to re-engage with cell-based therapy participants.Regenerative medicine · 2025Trial
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore patient and staff experience of best-practice rehabilitation advice (one session of face-to-face self-management advice with up to two additional optional sessions) compared with progressive functional exercise (up to six sessions of face-to-face physiotherapy) after ankle fracture.
designThe study drew on phenomenology using interviews and a focus group.
settingParticipants were from three NHS Trusts in England, UK.
participantsA purposive sample of 20 patients with ankle (malleolar) fractures from the Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation-pilot trial (now completed) were interviewed (median 50 min) from May 2019 to January 2020. They were 6 months post injury, over 50 years of age, (median 66, 12 females) and had received surgical or non-surgical treatment (seven internal fixation surgery, seven close contact casting, six walking boot). A focus group of five physiotherapists who had provided the study interventions (2.5 hours) was undertaken.
resultsThe findings show the acceptability of both interventions through the themes, 'being helped' (for patients) and 'developing expertise' (for staff) with subthemes of choosing and progressing. Progressive exercise added value with a perceived increase in strength, motion, ability to undertake activities and continued use of the workbook. Both staff and patients valued physiotherapy expertise demonstrated through interpersonal skills, advice, individualised exercise plans and active monitoring of progression. Best practice advice was particularly helpful in the early stages of recovery and with the use of mobility aids.
conclusionBoth interventions were acceptable but progressive exercise was highly valued by patients. Developing expertise through experiential learning enabled staff to facilitate progression. Adjustments to the workbook and the addition of exercises for continued recovery in the best practice advice would enhance a future study. Research during treatment provision may provide further insights into the challenges of facilitating progression of exercise.
trial registrationISRCTN16612336; AFTER-pilot trial).
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.