Co-designing health-literate hand surgery care: qualitative priorities for patient education and patient-reported outcome feedback

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Objective To identify patient, clinician, therapist and service priorities for a health-literacy intervention combining patient education with patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) feedback in routine hand surgery and hand therapy. Methods A qualitative co-design study was undertaken across public and private hand-care contexts in New South Wales, Australia. Twelve stakeholders participated: five consumers, three hand surgeons, one hand therapist and three administrative/managerial staff. Individual interviews plus a clinician group discussion were conducted. Data were collected in March 2026, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and de-identified. General inductive thematic analysis was undertaken in NVivo by one researcher, with final themes reviewed by co-investigators. Results Four themes guided intervention design: (1) providing information is not enough, it must be understood, retained and reinforced; (2) patients need a practical roadmap of diagnosis, treatment, recovery and rehabilitation; (3) education should be multimodal, reusable and adaptable to individual needs; and (4) PROMs should improve the clinical conversation rather than become another burden. Participants supported brief, accessible PROMs and visual feedback over time, but views differed on comparison with other patients because benchmarking could either reassure or create anxiety and unrealistic expectations. Conclusion Health-literate hand care requires more than readable leaflets. It requires repeated, practical and adaptable communication across the care pathway, with PROM feedback embedded in patient-clinician conversations. Practice implications Hand services should pair standardized core education with flexible delivery and use brief PROMs as conversation tools. Longitudinal displays may support monitoring and shared decisions, while group comparisons should be optional and carefully explained.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.