Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41121115›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2025

Facilitators and barriers to the use of a personalised digital decision aid in total knee replacement consultations: insights from patients and orthopaedic surgeons - an interview study.

Stefanie Deckert, Julia Slesaczeck, Diana Druschke, Franziska Beyer, Jochen Schmitt, Jörg Lützner, Toni Lange

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Stefanie DeckertCenter for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany. stefanie.deckert@ukdd.de.
Julia SlesaczeckCenter for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Diana DruschkeCenter for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Franziska BeyerUniversity Center of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Jochen SchmittCenter for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Jörg LütznerUniversity Center of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Toni LangeCenter for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA substantial proportion of patients remain dissatisfied following total knee replacement (TKR), possibly due to a lack of standardised indication criteria and inadequate incorporation of patients' preoperative expectations. Therefore, a practice guideline for TKR indication was developed to ensure the careful selection of patients suitable for this procedure. Based on this guideline, we developed a personalised digital decision aid (EKIT tool) to support implementing its recommendations and to improve shared decision-making (SDM) in routine care. This study explored patients' and orthopaedic surgeons' perceptions of the EKIT tool's facilitators and barriers.

methodsThis descriptive qualitative study was nested in a randomised controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of the EKIT tool. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with patients considering TKR and orthopaedic surgeons, focusing on themes such as usability, comprehensibility, and perceived usefulness, which we used to identify facilitators and barriers of the EKIT tool. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsSeventeen participants were interviewed: nine patients and eight orthopaedic surgeons. Both groups highlighted the EKIT tool's positive impact on SDM as a major facilitator. The orthopaedic surgeons emphasised that the EKIT tool enhanced the implementation of a structured, patient-centred and guideline-based consultation, facilitated clearer communication regarding patients' expectations and included a thorough consideration of their possible achievement by TKR. The patients also emphasised the importance of addressing individual expectations during consultations. Those patients who had already made their decision before the consultation reported lower perceived usefulness of the EKIT tool but felt validated and more confident in their decisions. Main barriers reported by the orthopaedic surgeons were the time required and patient-related factors such as heterogeneous information needs and moderate health literacy. Some patients felt overwhelmed by the amount of health information provided.

conclusionsThe EKIT tool has great potential for patients and orthopaedic surgeons to improve SDM in TKR consultations, appears to increase an informed decision for patients who are undecided, and increases confidence for patients who have already decided. All barriers can be addressed, leading to an optimised EKIT tool.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeDecision Support TechniquesOrthopedic SurgeonsAgedDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationDecision aidImplementationIndicationPractice guidelineTotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID41121115
PMCPMC12541942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.