Multidisciplinary clinician perspectives on peripheral artery disease (PAD) education and a PAD video education tool.

Objective: The goals of this mixed-methods study were to understand: (1) the education strategies used by multidisciplinary clinicians who treat patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD); and (2) their perceptions of a PAD video education tool. Methods: We conducted a single-center convergent parallel mixed-methods study of vascular surgeons, advanced practice vascular nurses, and primary care physicians focused on their current PAD education strategies. All participants completed a questionnaire to obtain information about demographics and professional practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after participants watched a 20-minute patient-centered PAD video education tool. Pre-video interviews were used to understand current education strategies. Post-video interviews were used to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the video. Participants also completed a post-video questionnaire to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility using a five-item Likert scale. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codes developed using inductive and deductive methods. Qualitative analysis was conducted in dyads to refine codes and identify overarching themes. Results: There were seven participants, including two vascular surgeons, four advanced practice vascular nurses, and one primary care physician. The themes were divided into four categories: (1) perceptions of current PAD education practices; (2) barriers to education; (3) feedback on the video education tool and implementation; and (4) recommendations and goals for improved PAD education. Participants prefer individualized education tailored to perceived patient knowledge and disease course; they do not consistently state, "You have PAD" to patients; and they have difficulty understanding the effectiveness of their education techniques. Barriers to education include time pressures and disease complexity. While participants feel that the video education tool could be an effective alternative to printed education materials, challenges to video implementation include time constraints, technological barriers, and the inability for patients to ask questions. Improving PAD patient education should emphasize the need for longitudinal and multidisciplinary care. Conclusions: This study of clinicians who treat PAD generates important narrative insights into the challenges of clinician-led PAD education. They value individualizing patient-centric PAD education and prioritizing opportunities for patients to ask questions but face significant pressures to deliver and evaluate the education they provide. The PAD video education tool is unlikely to replace direct discussions with patients but may be a valuable adjunctive tool. (JVS-Vascular Insights 2025;3:100258.).