ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2025
Co-design of a novel rehabilitation intervention for patients after ankle fracture surgery: the patient perspective.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEffective rehabilitation following ankle fracture surgery is essential for optimal recovery and patient satisfaction. However, traditional rehabilitation strategies often lack personalisation, leading to suboptimal outcomes. This study aimed to co-design a rehabilitation package, collaborating directly with patients, to understand their individual needs, using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework.
methodsIntegrated within the larger weight-bearing in ankle fractures (WAX) trial, this study employed the BCW to understand behaviour, intervention options and content implementation. Nominal Group Technique was used to facilitate a workshop with 10 ankle fracture patients, and subsequent surveys were used to gather and prioritise rehabilitation needs and strategies. Participants were aged between 28 and 69, and nine (90%) were female, with representation from seven different NHS hospital trusts. Two experienced patient representatives facilitated the workshop.
resultsRehabilitation strategies were developed focussing on interventions that included education, training, environmental restructuring, persuasion and enablement, delivered through an app or website. Survey results indicated high patient enthusiasm for structured, accessible rehabilitation support, including instructional videos, live chats with physiotherapists and peer support forums. Patients desired advice on returning to hobbies and life roles, and particularly returning to driving, bathing and work.
conclusionThe BCW framework facilitated the development of a patient-centred rehabilitation package, highlighting the importance of tailored, accessible interventions. Patients expressed strong support for the proposed strategies, suggesting potential for improved rehabilitation outcomes through personalised, digitally delivered support. These components will be used to co-design future rehabilitation interventions.
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.