Allied health professionals' views on important outcomes of children's elective lower limb orthopaedic surgery: a qualitative interview study to inform a core outcome set.

PURPOSE: A common methodological limitation of research that guides surgical procedure selection for children's elective lower limb orthopaedic surgeries is inconsistent outcome selection. Improving outcome consistency can be achieved through the development of a core outcome set (COS). The aim of this study is to identify which outcomes are considered important for children's elective lower limb orthopaedic surgeries by allied health professionals (AHPs) and explore why they select these outcomes, to inform a COS development project. METHODS: Online semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant AHPs. Participants were selected using maximum variation purposive sampling; selection was based on profession and inpatient/outpatient role. The data set was analysed using an inductive and deductive approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four physiotherapists, three orthotists, three prosthetists, and two occupational therapists were interviewed. Most identified outcomes of importance related to "activities and participation". From the data, we conceptualised that AHPs with effective multidisciplinary communication focused on child-centred outcomes, while clinicians with limited multidisciplinary teamwork focused on role-based outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is concurrence between outcomes identified as important in this study, and other qualitative studies in similar populations. These important outcomes were seldom measured in previous studies or in routine clinical practice.Implications for rehabilitationAllied health professionals (AHPs) prioritise activity and participation outcomes after children's elective lower limb orthopaedic surgery.It is important to the rehabilitation of children after elective lower limb orthopaedic surgery that all involved AHPs collaborate with the wider multidisciplinary team.Multidisciplinary team communication encourages collaborative outcome identification, and discourages role defined outcome focus.

Construction and validation of sham insoles used in clinical trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Insoles are commonly prescribed to treat pathologies in a variety of patient groups; however, there is limited evidence to guide clinical decision-making. A well-validated sham insole is critical to conducting a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to establish: (1) How are sham insoles constructed? (2) What measures are undertaken to ensure adequate blinding? (3) What methods are used to validate the biomechanical effects? STUDY DESIGN: A systematic search of the methodology of level I-II therapeutic evidence. METHODS: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were placebo-controlled clinical trials, sham insoles used, treatment insoles alter biomechanics, treatment insoles meet the ISO definition of foot orthotics, sham and treatment insoles tested in normal walking, and article available in English. RESULTS: The search generated 270 results. Twenty-four trials were included. 19% of sham insoles were described sufficiently to be replicated. The most common sham construction characteristics were full length, ethylene-vinyl acetate material, and flat insoles. 58% of studies were double-blinded; however, many did not describe any blinding methods. There is evidence that blinding the intervention details and a similar insole appearance is effective to blind participants. 13% of studies included a shoe-only condition to allow assessment of the biomechanical effects of sham insoles. CONCLUSIONS: There is inconsistent construction, blinding, and biomechanical validation of sham insoles. This casts a substantial doubt on the quality and reliability of the evidence base to support the prescription of insoles.