ArticleMusculoskeletal care2025
The Acceptability of Musculoskeletal Community Appointment Days: A Mixed-Methods Service Evaluation.
Article in Musculoskeletal care, 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.
- The Acceptability of Musculoskeletal Community Appointment Days: A Mixed-Methods Service Evaluation.Musculoskeletal care · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMusculoskeletal (MSK) conditions represent an increasing challenge within the NHS. Rising demand has driven a national shift towards more community-based care and supported self-management. Community Appointment Days (CAD) are community-based, full-day events providing access to clinical expertise, community partners and voluntary sector services. The collaborative ethos facilitates a personalised and holistic approach to musculoskeletal health. This evaluation aimed to explore the acceptability of the CAD model.
methodsFollowing a CAD in the Southwest of England, patient experience was collected using the Friends and Family test and CollaboRATE measure for level of shared decision-making. Interviews were conducted with patients, and a focus group was held with staff. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) informed the interview and focus group guides, and data analysis. Thematic analysis employed a hybrid deductive/inductive approach.
resultsThe CAD was attended by 130/160 (81%) patients. Experience measures were completed by 97/130 (75%) patients. The Friends and Family test demonstrated that most patients were 'extremely likely' (n = 63, 65%) or 'likely' (n = 32, 33%) to recommend a CAD. The average CollaboRATE score was 10.8/12. One-to-one interviews were completed with 13 patients, and a focus group with 10 staff. Four themes were identified: (1) a positive response to the CAD ethos; (2) the importance of effective planning and communication; (3) effective implementation of the CAD; and (4) potential impact and integration with existing musculoskeletal pathways.
conclusionThe CAD was perceived as an acceptable, personalised, and holistic model of care that supports self-management and cross-sector collaboration for supporting MSK health.
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.