ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2025
Perspectives on Communicating Information and Shared Decision-Making in Patients Undergoing Transtibial Amputation.
Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patients undergoing lower extremity amputation often desire to take an active part in decision-making. The primary aim of this study was to explore patients' experiences of the care trajectory and information provided after a new care program was introduced. The secondary aim was to explore patients' perspectives of their involvement and participation in shared decision-making throughout the care process. The care program features new educational material, recommendations for the sagittal surgical technique, and information about a rigid removable dressing, early liner treatment, and a multidisciplinary team follow up three weeks after amputation. Methods: Fifteen participants who underwent transtibial amputation were included in the study and were interviewed two to three months post-surgery. Purposeful sampling was used, and data were analyzed with content analysis. Results: Three themes were identified: (1) the emotionally mixed experience of becoming a person with an amputation, (2) the need to be seen during the amputation process, and (3) the importance of being involved in care. Participants wanted to take a more active role in the decision-making process, and our multidisciplinary team follow up was an excellent example of shared decision-making. Printed information was appreciated, but the most crucial aspect was oral communication, given the gravity of the subject. Participants experienced a lack of continuity throughout the care trajectory. Conclusions: Individualized oral information and interaction with dedicated healthcare professionals are essential for participants undergoing transtibial amputation. Implementing a multidisciplinary team consultation pre-amputation may enhance patient involvement and promote shared decision-making.
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.