| Title |
What are patients' knowledge, expectation and experience of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of their tendinopathies? A qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13047-018-0254-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raymond Leung, Nikolaos Malliaropoulos, Vasileios Korakakis, Nat Padhiar |
| Abstract |
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) is used to manage different tendinopathies and appears to be effective in some tendinopathies but not others. The reasons for this are unclear. There is evidence that patient outcomes can be influenced by a patient-centred approach. There is therefore a need to qualitatively evaluate patient experiences for a treatment like ESWT where uncertainties exist. The aim of this study was to understand patients' overall perspective of ESWT to manage their tendinopathy. A qualitative semi-structured face-to-face interview study design was used and the data was analysed thematically using 'Framework Analysis'. Eleven participants that have had radial ESWT (rESWT) to treat a range of tendinopathies were recruited from a private London sports clinic and interviewed in person or via Skype™. Four main themes and 16 subthemes were identified. Subthemes included previous failed treatment, clinician factors, mechanisms of ESWT, positive aspects, negative aspects, responsibility over own health and perceived outcomes. The participants understood the procedural aspects of rESWT, but were largely unaware of its mechanism of action and whether it was found to be effective for their condition or not. The participants felt that self-management measures were equally or more important than rESWT to help treat their tendinopathies. Recommendations would be for rESWT providers to offer patients written information, maintain continuity of care, address patients' expectations, feedback on progress, and encourage self-management measures such as activity modification. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 25% |
| Australia | 3 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Belgium | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 43% |