ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Exploring implementation of a shared decision-making intervention for patients following an Anterior Cruciate Ligament rupture: a qualitative investigation.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) ruptures affect over 20,000 individuals in the UK each year. To date, three randomised controlled trials have compared the two main treatment options of surgical and non-surgical management following rupture and report conflicting findings. Recent qualitative research has also reported uncertainty and confusion among patients regarding decision-making about their choice of treatment. A theory- and evidence-based shared decision-making intervention was co-developed in a prior study to support patients to decide on treatment. The aim of this study was to understand implementation factors associated with implementing a shared decision-making intervention for patients following an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture.
methodsIndividual qualitative interviews, analysed using a framework approach underpinned by the Extended Normalisation Process Theory (ENPT). Data were mapped to the four ENPT constructs: potential, capacity, capability and contribution. Conducted as part of a non-randomised feasibility study in an orthopaedic and physiotherapy service at an acute National Health Service Teaching Hospital in the Midlands, UK. Five patients with a first time ACL rupture and five physiotherapists with experience of using the shared decision-making intervention.
resultsImplementation factors, including barriers and enablers to future implementation and normalisation, associated with implementing a shared decision-making intervention for patients following ACL rupture have been identified and mapped to ENPT. Both patients and physiotherapists demonstrated a clear understanding of the SDM intervention’s purpose (coherence) and individual intention to operationalise it within the pathway (potential, capacity). The intervention was further discussed to support interactional work between patients and clinicians during consultations and physiotherapists were positive about its workability and adaptability to meet patients’ needs (capability). Physiotherapists described the intervention’s role in altering the social roles of both themselves and of patients, which supported the set-up and action of SDM conversations (capacity). The communication of equipoise and context created for intervention delivery was identified to be critical to engagement (potential). The intervention was described as non-burdensome, patient participants reported they would recommend it to others following diagnosis of an ACL rupture and physiotherapist participants described utilising the intervention with patients outside the trial (contribution, capability).
conclusionImplementation factors, explored through the lens of ENPT, have supported understanding of future normalisation of the intervention in clinical practice. Areas of focus ahead of further research, for example understanding equipoise, have also been identified.
trial registrationISRCTN17801081. Registration date: 23.01.2024.
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.