ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Acceptability among patients of a risk graphic designed to facilitate shared decision making prior to elective abdominal wall hernia repair.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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.
- Do patients scheduled for inguinal hernia repair express a preference for the repair technique? What questions do they frequently ask?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk calculators for elective surgery rarely engage patients in designing dynamic visual imagery illustrating how risk can change with preoperative optimization. We conducted a mixed methods study examining the acceptability of illustrated components of a risk calculator for elective hernia repair with patients.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews between August and September 2024. Participants were guided through the visual components of an abdominal wall hernia repair risk calculator and asked to "think aloud" while providing feedback on the tool's visual appearance. Participants completed a validated scale identifying characteristics for intervention improvement. Quantitative analyses were performed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data were analyzed using inductive framework analysis.
results26 participants completed interviews. Mean age was 49.3 (SD 14.21), mean BMI was 27.8 (SD 6.64). 57.6% identified as female sex, 80.8% identified as White or Caucasian, 11.6% Black or African American, and 3.8% as Hispanic/Latino. 23.1% identified as smokers. Participants agreed that the risk graphic improved their ability to understand risk and behavior change opportunities with a mean agreement of 3.96 (SD 1.31) on a 1-5 agreement scale. Participants noted how clear the graphic was in improving their ability to discuss behavior change opportunities with their surgeon prior to their operation with a mean agreement of 4.04 (SD 1.22) on a 1-5 agreement scale. Qualitatively, we identified four major domains: 1) Delivery Method of the Tool; 2) Usability of the Tool; 3) Interpreting Risk from the Tool; and 4) Value of the Tool. Participants felt the tool sparked conversations with the surgeon, was accessible for shared decision-making, and highlighted the importance of contextualizing risk in decision-making.
conclusionsInterviews identified areas of improvement for the risk graphic's visual design and provided signals for how the graphic can be implemented clinically. This study emphasized the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into tools designed for 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.