Search

Objectives: To explore physiotherapists' experiences and perceived acceptability of delivering a bracing intervention for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the 'PROvision of braces for Patients with knee OA' (PROP OA) randomised controlled trial. Method: Semi‐structured telephone interviews with consenting physiotherapists who received the PROP OA training programme and delivered the knee bracing intervention (advice, information and exercise instruction plus knee brace matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two‐stage analytic framework: inductive thematic analysis preceded mapping to constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results: Eight physiotherapists were interviewed and six key themes were developed. Perceptions of the training programme were generally positive, but additional formal training and experiential learning consolidated confidence and skills in novel intervention components. Advice, information, and exercise instruction reflected usual physiotherapy care for knee OA. Physiotherapists were confident in delivering the knee brace, but determining the pattern of knee OA to inform brace type selection was challenging. Physiotherapists valued brace adherence enhancing strategies and the follow‐up appointment to facilitate adherence. Perceived impact of the bracing intervention for people with OA was positive. The bracing intervention was perceived as acceptable, although improving self‐efficacy to deliver novel intervention components (e.g., reading x‐rays) would enhance acceptability. Conclusion: The complex knee bracing intervention was broadly perceived as acceptable by physiotherapists. If implemented within clinical practice beyond the trial, physiotherapists might benefit from not only initial training in brace selection but also ongoing support and mentoring to increase self‐efficacy in delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research and innovation in biomedicine and health care increasingly depend on electronic data. The emergence of data-driven technologies and associated digital transformations has focused attention on the value of such data. Despite the broad consensus of the value of health data, there is less consensus on the basis for that value; thus, the nature and extent of health data value remain unclear. Much of the existing literature presupposes that the value of data is to be understood primarily in financial terms, and assumes that a single financial value can be assigned. We here argue that the value of a dataset is instead relational; that is, the value depends on who wants to use it and for what purposes. Moreover, data are valued for both nonfinancial and financial reasons. Thus, it may be more accurate to discuss the values (plural) of a dataset rather than the singular value. This plurality of values opens up an important set of questions about how health data should be valued for the purposes of public policy. We argue that public value models provide a useful approach in this regard. According to public value theory, public value is created, or captured, to the extent that public sector institutions further their democratically established goals, and their impact on improving the lives of citizens. This article outlines how adopting such an approach might be operationalized within existing health care systems such as the English National Health Service, with particular focus on actionable conclusions.