ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Evaluating the implementation of personalised outcomes forecasts to optimise supervised exercise therapy in patients with intermittent claudication in the Netherlands: a multimethods study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo support the optimisation of supervised exercise therapy (SET) in patients with intermittent claudication, we developed personalised outcomes forecasts (POFs), which visualise estimated walking distance and quality of life for individual patients. The POFs may enable healthcare professionals, such as physical and exercise therapists, to improve shared decision-making and patient outcomes.
objectivesTo assess differences in patient outcomes (functional walking distance, maximal walking distance and health-related quality of life) and the level of shared decision-making before and after the implementation of POFs in the conservative treatment of patients with intermittent claudication.
methodsAn interrupted time series design was used to compare preimplementation and postimplementation differences on patient outcomes. Using routinely collected data, differences from baseline to 6 months were compared between patients before and patients after the implementation. To compare levels of shared decision-making, we conducted observations of initial consults within a sample of physical or exercise therapists both before and after the implementation. Audiorecords of observations were scored on shared decision-making using the OPTION-5 instrument.
resultsDifferences in improvements between patients with whom POFs were discussed (n=317) and patients before the implementation of POFs (n=721) did not reach statistical significance for both functional walking distance (experimental vs. control=+23%, p=0.11) and maximal walking distance (experimental vs. control=+21%, p=0.08). For health-related quality of life, the POFs-informed patients showed a statistically significant greater improvement of 4% (p=0.04). Increased levels of shared decision-making were observed in postimplementation consults (n=20) when compared with preimplementation consults (n=36), as the median OPTION-5 total score showed a statistically significant increase from 45 to 55 points (p=0.01).
conclusionsIntegrating POFs into daily practice of SET for patients with intermittent claudication could assist in improving health-related quality of life and enhancing patient involvement. Using POFs did not result in statistically significant different improvements between groups on walking distances. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8838.
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.