ArticlePEC innovation2025
Usability testing of an individualized decision aid for total knee arthroplasty.
Article in PEC innovation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), affecting over 15 % of Canadians. With an aging population and suboptimal use of non-surgical options, TKA rates and wait times are rising. Although TKA is effective, 30 % of patients are dissatisfied due to unmet expectations, suggesting some surgeries may be inappropriate. Patient decision aids can set realistic expectations, improve decision quality, and enhance satisfaction. We developed an Methods: Participants were recruited from a high-volume urban hip and knee clinic. Eligible adults diagnosed with knee OA completed the decision aid online and subsequently filled out demographics and survey forms, including the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS), System Usability Scale (SUS), and Acceptability Scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis of open-ended responses. Results: There were 20 participants (mean age 68 years, 65 % female). The average PDMS score was 66.4, indicating above-average preparedness for decision-making. The SUS score averaged 63.4, suggesting marginal usability. Females and participants under 70 years reported higher PDMS and SUS scores. Most participants rated the information presentation as "good" or "excellent," with 75 % finding the decision aid's length appropriate and information balanced. Feedback highlighted the need to simplify content, reduce variables, and offer the aid earlier in treatment. Conclusions: The decision aid demonstrated reasonable usability, acceptability, and usefulness for routine practice. Future research should explore its impact on long-term patient outcomes and satisfaction, including among non-surgical populations. Practice implications: Incorporating this decision aid into routine practice can help patients set realistic expectations and make informed decisions, reducing dissatisfaction. Offering it earlier in the patient journey may enhance its impact, especially for non-surgical options.
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.