ArticlePloS one2026
Exploring patient interpretation of an orthosis adherence checklist: A cognitive interview study.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Upper extremity orthoses are commonly used in rehabilitation to reduce pain, improve alignment, and support return to daily activities. These benefits depend on regular and correct use, yet adherence is influenced by personal, environmental, and device-related factors. Although a checklist of adherence-related items has been developed based on clinician expertise, it has never been evaluated by patients. Understanding how patients interpret these items is essential before the checklist can inform development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to support adherence. The aim of this study was to explore how people with lived experience of upper extremity pain and disability using upper extremity orthoses understand and respond to the items in an adherence checklist, and to identify areas requiring improvement. Cognitive interviews were conducted with adults who had used an upper extremity orthosis to evaluate a clinician-developed adherence checklist. Using a think-aloud approach and follow-up questions, participants described how they interpreted each item and selected responses. Directed content analysis was used to categorize interpretation issues related to clarity, relevance, and reference point. Thirteen participants were interviewed. Most items were interpreted as meaningful and easy to answer. However, several terms were perceived as confusing or overly technical, including "customizability," "aesthetics," and "undue strain." Interpretation of some items depended on context; for example, "breathability" varied with weather, and "flexibility" depended on the intended function of the orthosis. "Affordability" was not relevant for many participants, indicating the need for a "Not applicable" response option. When asked about adherence, participants commonly described following instructions rather than a broader, multidimensional concept. Participants valued the intent and content of the items. Cognitive interviewing identified ways to improve wording, add contextual cues, and refine response options to better reflect diverse experiences. These refinements will support development of a patient-centred outcome measure for assessing adherence to upper extremity orthoses.
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.