ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
A guideline-based preference elicitation tool to enhance shared decision-making in supervised exercise therapy for patients with intermittent claudication: a process evaluation.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2025. 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.
- A guideline-based preference elicitation tool to enhance shared decision-making in supervised exercise therapy for patients with intermittent claudication: a process evaluation.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- In reference to "A guideline-based preference elicitation tool to enhance shared decision-making in supervised exercise therapy for patients with intermittent claudication: a process evaluation".Annals of medicine · 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
backgroundTo facilitate person-centered physical therapy for patients with intermittent claudication, we introduced a preference elicitation tool to Dutch physical therapists. The tool is designed to support the patient-therapist dialogue and enhance collaborative treatment planning. Successful integration of this tool into practice requires a thorough understanding of factors that influenced therapists' (non)adoption.
objectivesTo evaluate whether therapists adopted the preference elicitation tool, assess the tool's reach, and identify perceived barriers and facilitators by therapists that influenced adoption.
methodsA multi-method process evaluation was conducted following a series of implementation activities. Routinely collected quantitative data were used to assess adoption and reach. Adoption was measured by the percentage of therapists who completed the tool's e-learning module and the percentage of therapists who started using the tool. Reach was measured by the percentage of eligible patients with whom therapists actually used the tool. To identify barriers and facilitators, qualitative semi-structured interviews with eleven therapists were conducted and deductively analysed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework.
resultsOf the 1,130 therapists eligible to use the preference elicitation tool, 64% completed the e-learning. Among these, 45% started using the tool in clinical practice. Therapists used the tool with 38% of eligible patients. In total, 39 barriers and 37 facilitators for tool adoption were identified. Barriers included time investment, discomfort with the formal communication setting, and conflicts with activity-oriented role perceptions. Facilitators included the tool's user-friendliness, flexible use of the tool, and enhanced patient engagement.
conclusionModest adoption and reach rates indicate opportunities for improving uptake and sustainable implementation of the preference elicitation tool. Therapists' decisions to adopt the tool were influenced by various factors. Providing therapists with strategies to maintain a flexible approach to using the tool could address key barriers. Future research should explore patients' perspectives on the preference elicitation tool.
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.