Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42343296›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026

Decision support in the management of musculoskeletal disorders: a qualitative study of physiotherapists' and patients' experiences.

Nina Elisabeth Klevanger, Anita Formo Bones, Ingebrigt Meisingset, Fredrik Granviken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Nina Elisabeth KlevangerDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Postboks 8905, MTFS, Trondheim, 7491 , Norway. nina.klevanger@ntnu.no.
Anita Formo BonesDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Postboks 8905, MTFS, Trondheim, 7491 , Norway.
Ingebrigt MeisingsetDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Postboks 8905, MTFS, Trondheim, 7491 , Norway.
Fredrik GranvikenDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Postboks 8905, MTFS, Trondheim, 7491 , Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision support systems (CDSSs) present a paradigm shift in health care by assisting complex decision-making processes. While implementing such systems has considerable potential, they simultaneously influence clinical encounters by impacting decision-making authority. SupportPrim PT (physiotherapy) is a CDSS that uses artificial intelligence methods to provide personalised treatment recommendations to patients with musculoskeletal disorders based on similar successful patients. This study aimed to explore how the CDSS influences the decision-making process of physiotherapists and patients.

methodsThis qualitative study is based on individual interviews with 11 patients with musculoskeletal disorders and 10 physiotherapists in Norwegian primary healthcare in 2021 who have used the SupportPrim PT CDSS. The interviews were analysed thematically, with a theoretical approach inspired by Actor-Network Theory.

resultsFirst, both patients and physiotherapists valued the visualisation of patients' biopsychosocial health status. It helped address health issues and expand and align perceptions of relevant information, leading to trust in physiotherapists' clinical reasoning. Nevertheless, revealing health problems also occasionally created insecurity. Second, the physiotherapists mainly felt that the CDSS treatment decision screen supported their reasoning. For some, it served as a pedagogic tool, lending the physiotherapist authority by confirming the accuracy of their treatment suggestions. However, many found it redundant to use with patients, as they felt secure in how to proceed. Patient involvement was also challenged by occasional inappropriate treatment suggestions and abundant and complex information, diminishing therapists' trust in the CDSS.

conclusionCDSSs can prove valuable by cultivating trust in physiotherapists' clinical reasoning. However, this trust can simultaneously challenge shared decision-making with the patient. Other aspects influencing decision-making include expectations of the CDSS, its timing, and the content of treatment suggestions. The physiotherapists' ability and need to interpose between patients and the CDSS to counter inappropriate information also impede shared use. Future studies should investigate how such CDSSs can enhance patient agency by allowing access and addressing the changing role of the physiotherapist once a CDSS is introduced in the clinical encounter.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalMusculoskeletal DiseasesPatient ParticipationPhysical TherapistsAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayProfessional-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchCase-based reasoningClinical autonomyClinical reasoningData sovereignty

Identifiers

PMID42343296
PMCPMC13629069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.