ArticlePloS one2025
How do patients and health care professionals perceive de-implementation of routine follow-ups after total hip or knee arthroplasty? Protocol for a nested qualitative study within a hybrid effectiveness de-implementation trial.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal hip and knee arthroplasties significantly improve the quality of life for patients with severe osteoarthritis. However, some patients experience complications that require follow-up care. Amid rising demand for these arthroplasties, debates have emerged around the value of routinely scheduled follow-ups (RFUs). This qualitative study, nested within a hybrid effectiveness de-implementation trial that assesses quantitative differences between RFU and check-ups on-demand (COD), will explore and compare the patients' and health care professionals' (HCPs) experiences with, and perceptions about, RFU and COD at 1 and 10 years after total hip and knee arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND
methodsFirst, a pre-study reference panel will be organised to prepare a focus groups topics guide. Subsequently, 2 methods of data collection will be used: 8 focus groups with total of 80 participants from the main trial and 10 in-depth interviews with different HCPs. Thematic analysis using a deductive approach will be performed on anonymised transcripts to identify key themes. For this, the comparative case study framework and the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability will be used. Findings will be used to inform the transition from RFU to COD if deemed acceptable by patients and HCPs.
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.