ArticlePloS one2023
Nationwide implementation of personalized outcomes forecasts to support physical therapists in treating patients with intermittent claudication: Protocol for an interrupted time series study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient and Clinician Perceptions of a "People-Like-Me" Tool for Personalized Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Qualitative Interview Study.Physical therapy · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the implementation of personalised outcomes forecasts to optimise supervised exercise therapy in patients with intermittent claudication: a multimethods process evaluation.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Evaluating the implementation of personalised outcomes forecasts to optimise supervised exercise therapy in patients with intermittent claudication in the Netherlands: a multimethods study.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
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
introductionShared decision-making is the cornerstone of patient-centered care. However, evidence suggests that the application of shared decision-making in physical therapy practice is limited. To elicit shared decision-making and thereby potentially improve patient outcomes for patients with intermittent claudication, we developed a decision support system. This decision support system provides personalized outcomes forecasts that visualize the estimated walking distance of an individual patient. We hypothesize that personalized outcomes forecasts can support physical therapists in personalizing care to the needs and priorities of the individual patient to improve therapy outcomes. RESEARCH
objectivesThe primary aim is to evaluate the impact of personalized outcomes forecasts for patients with intermittent claudication to optimize personalized treatment. Second, this study aims to evaluate the process of implementation.
methodsThis study uses a prospective interrupted time series (ITS) design. Participating physical therapists are divided into four clusters. Every month of the study period, a new cluster will be invited to begin using the decision support system. We aim to include data of 11,250 newly referred patients for physical therapy treatment. All therapists associated with a network of specialized therapists (Chronic CareNet) and patients treated by these therapists are eligible to participate. The decision support system, called the KomPas, makes use of personalized outcomes forecasts, which visualize the estimated outcome of supervised exercise therapy for an individual patient with intermittent claudication. Personalized outcomes forecasts are developed using a neighbors-based approach that selects patients similar to the index patient (a.k.a. neighbors) from a large database. Outcomes to evaluate impact of implementation are patients' functional and maximal walking distance, quality of life and shared decision-making. Process evaluation will be measured in terms of utilization efficacy, including the outcomes dropout rate and reasons to (not) use the personalized outcomes forecasts. Data will be routinely collected through two online systems: the Chronic CareNet Quality system, and the website logs of the decision support system. Additionally, observations and semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a small subset of therapists. ETHICS: Formal medical ethical approval by the Medical Research Ethics Committees United 'MEC-U' was not required for this study under Dutch law (reference number 2020-6250).
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.