ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Evaluation of the implementation of personalised outcomes forecasts to optimise supervised exercise therapy in patients with intermittent claudication: a multimethods process evaluation.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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.
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
backgroundPersonalised outcomes forecasts (POFs) were introduced among physical and exercise therapists in the Netherlands to optimise supervised exercise therapy for patients with intermittent claudication. Yet, therapists' initial adoption and sustainable implementation of POFs can be influenced by various factors.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine therapists' adoption of the POFs, their fidelity to the measurement protocol for supervised exercise therapy, and their perceived barriers and facilitators for using POFs in practice.
methodsA multimethod process evaluation was conducted, including quantitative descriptive and pre-post approaches, as well as a qualitative framework approach. To examine adoption, we evaluated the proportion of therapists who expressed interest in POFs by completing one of three provided e-learnings and the proportion of therapists who started using POFs in practice. To examine fidelity to the measurement protocol, we compared the per-episode proportion of follow-up measurements documented by therapists preimplementation and postimplementation. Qualitative data on barriers and facilitators were identified through semistructured interviews with therapists.
resultsOne year after the implementation, 89% of therapists eligible to use POFs (n=1727) completed at least one e-learning and 51% of therapists started using POFs. The per-episode proportion of documented follow-up measurements per therapist increased, from a mean rate of 37% (3 months) and 22% (6 months) during the preimplementation period to a mean rate of 53% (3 months) and 32% (6 months) during the postimplementation period (p<0.001). Among interviewed therapists (n=12), identified barriers included competing demands and a lack of skills or confidence. Identified facilitators included the potential to improve the quality of care and a positive user attitude.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that although there is initial interest in and adoption of POFs, addressing barriers and leveraging facilitators through tailored implementation strategies could further increase their utilisation in practice.
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.