Patient and Clinician Perceptions of a “People-Like-Me” Tool for Personalized Rehabilitation after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Qualitative Interview Study

Description of tool

The tool consisted of a web-based interface that allowed clinicians to predict and monitor patient recovery using a “people-like-me” approach. Essentially, the tool used an algorithm to identify a subset of patients from a large historical database who were similar to a new patient. Then, it used the actual recovery data from these similar patients to predict the new patient’s recovery. These predictions were presented to patients and clinicians as “people-like-me” reference charts, which are conceptually similar to childhood growth charts. These “people-like-me” reference charts (1) displayed the patient’s projected recovery (including the uncertainty around this projection) and (2) compared the patient’s observed recovery against this projection in terms of percentiles. To make these reference charts more interpretable, the tool also provided text-based interpretations of the patient’s recovery (see Figure 1). The tool generated reference charts for commonly collected outcomes after TKA including knee flexion and extension range of motion (ROM), Timed Up and Go (TUG),¹⁶ and the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale.¹⁷ The tool did not provide clinicians with specific treatment recommendations. Instead, clinicians were encouraged to use their clinical judgment to determine how the information should be applied. We have created a pared-down, open access version of the tool for knee flexion and TUG recovery that can be viewed at: https://cu-restore.shinyapps.io/knee_recovery_v1/.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Example of the “people like me” tool’s output

Study design and setting

Two outpatient physical therapy clinics piloted the tool from September 2020 – December 2022. Both clinics are in the Greenville, South Carolina, USA metro area and belong to the same system of outpatient physical therapy clinics. The clinics have been collaborating with the research team since 2013 and contributed most of the data used to train the tool’s predictive algorithms. All permanent, full-time physical therapy clinicians (physical therapists and physical therapist assistants) were encouraged to use the tool with all patients after TKA.

Two members of the research team (LC and JG) conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with two groups of participants: 1) patients who underwent TKA and who were exposed to the tool by their clinician(s) during rehabilitation and 2) clinicians who used the tool with patients after TKA. During this study LC was a physical therapist and postdoctoral researcher with experience in qualitative analysis. JG was a physical therapist and PhD candidate who was involved in the development of the tool and had previous exposure to clinician participants. All study procedures were approved by the Colorado Multiple Institute Review Board (COMIRB # 18-1246).

Participant recruitment

We recruited a convenience sample of patients and clinicians (physical therapists and physical therapist assistants) from the pilot clinics. Patients were eligible to participate if they had been exposed to the tool (n=167) during their treatment and had been discharged from rehabilitation. Clinicians were eligible if they had used the tool with patients (n=16). We contacted patients via telephone and clinicians via e-mail to explain the study and gauge interest in participation. Eligible and interested participants were scheduled for a videoconference meeting and provided informed consent on the day of their interview.

Data collection and analysis

The interview guides were developed using a team-based approach and were revised iteratively during the initial interviews. We used similar interview guides for patients and clinicians (See Supplemental Materials) that asked participants about their experience using the tool. We kept the interview guide questions broad and open-ended, but they were structured to probe for key tenets of the “people-like-me” approach (e.g., personalized care, patient-clinician communication, shared decision making).¹³

Interviews were conducted jointly by study team members (LC and JG) using a videoconferencing platform (Zoom® for patients and Microsoft Teams version 1.6.00.7354, for clinicians). After each interview, a member of the interview team completed a debriefing form (see Supplemental Materials) to summarize emergent concepts, and patterns and to facilitate an iterative approach to revising the interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were checked against the audio recordings for accuracy by a study team member.

Two members of the research team (LC and JG) analyzed the data immediately after each interview under the guidance of a senior qualitative researcher (MM). We analyzed patient and clinician interviews separately using descriptive content analysis that combined inductive and deductive approaches.^18,19 We used Dedoose software (version 9.0.90) for all coding and analysis procedures.

First, we created a preliminary coding framework using the first four patient interviews. This involved a collaborative process among the analysts (JG and LC) where we reviewed the transcripts together, identified relevant sections of the text, and created preliminary codes. These preliminary codes were all derived from the data. However, given the structure of the interview guides, some of these codes encompassed key aspects of the “people-like-me” approach. We sought feedback from an experienced qualitative researcher (MM) to check our interpretation and labelling of codes to specific meaning units in the text. After we completed this process with the first four interviews, we refined our coding framework where we grouped key related codes into overarching themes and subsequently defining each code and theme. We then reviewed our coding framework and definitions with MM. Once we had a robust and well-defined coding framework, LC and JG independently coded these first 4 interviews again applying the coding structure, reviewing codes for consistency, and resolving any discrepancies of interpretation by consensus.

After establishing sufficient inter-coder reliability²⁰, either LC or JG independently coded the remaining interviews. LC, JG, and MM met throughout the analysis process to discuss emerging patterns, reorganize the codebook, and identify any additional themes. Finally, we reviewed and refined our themes to ensure coded extracts reflected a coherent pattern and re-read the entire dataset to ensure final themes were reflective of the data. We used a similar approach for the clinician interviews. We interviewed patients until we reached thematic saturation²¹, and we interviewed all clinicians who expressed interest in participating.

1) Expectations

Expectations are beliefs about anticipated outcomes. This includes how the tool helps inform whether patients are meeting projected benchmarks and how the tool shapes patients’ understanding of their projected course of recovery. Within the ‘Expectations’ theme we identified 2 subthemes (‘Meeting expectations’, and ‘Setting expectations’).

Positive reinforcement

Often, patients who felt motivated by the tool discussed the concept of positive reinforcement. For example, patients discussed that reviewing the tool’s output was like getting a “pat on the back”, or a “star on my chart”.

Many patients stated the tool motivated them to continue participating in rehabilitation as it provided evidence that they were making progress in their recovery. Patients often stated that when the tool indicated they were meeting or exceeding expectations, it provided a form of validation or encouraged them to strive for an even better outcome.

“It was a wow factor. You know, I hadn’t seen those before. And it just gave me a lot of insight as to this is where I am now, and I know what to look forward to. And yeah, it’s a poor substitute for a coach, kicking your butt to get moving, but it’s a good second one.” (Patient, Participant 6)

In contrast, one participant who had a particularly hard time achieving range-of-motion after surgery described feeling demotivated or discouraged by the tool.

“Well, I wanted to do better when I saw that I wasn’t doing well, in some of those areas, but I couldn’t. My leg wouldn’t do it. I guess, yeah, you’re bummed because it’s just like getting a poor grade in school. You know, you missed the mark.” (Patient, Participant 10)

Clinicians similarly perceived that certain subgroups of patients were either motivated or demotivated by the tool. For example, when the tool suggested a patient was not meeting expectations, clinicians felt this could either motivate them to improve their status or discourage them depending on the patient.

Two clinicians indicated that in rare cases, they chose not to share the tool’s output with patients who were struggling in their recovery. A few clinicians also suggested they would prefer to use their clinical judgement in the future to determine if/how to use the tool’s output with certain patients, to promote positive patient interactions.

“I think it’s just, it’s not helpful at that point. Like, ‘hey, we know you’re not doing well. We know this is the direction you’re headed.’ I don’t think they need another piece of paper to tell them that.” (Participant 4, Clinician)

Competition

Patients often described that the tool gave them a sense of “winning”, accomplishment, or success in their recovery.

“I liked to see where I was. So that it would encourage me to push harder to… to either improve or get higher on the graph. To win more.” (Participant 4, Patient)

Clinicians perceived that certain patients were more likely to be motivated by the tool. For example, someone with a “type-A personality” or someone who enjoys a target to work towards (i.e., achieving a high score), was thought to be more motivated by the tool.

“If they were like goal-oriented people who like, needed a number to kind of work towards…it was like, ‘OK, well, here’s your number that you need to work for, for flexion or extension, that’s what we’re shooting for.’” (Participant 2, Clinician)

Guiding treatment

Patients had mixed perceptions of how the tool was used to guide their care. Some patients indicated the tool supported collaborative decision making with their clinician, including which exercises to focus on or when to consider discharge from physical therapy.

“So, we had decided, and the graph supported that decision, I think, to go ahead and graduate me.” (Participant 13, Patient)

Other patients did not perceive that the tool influenced their plan of care directly, or they were unsure if it impacted their PT’s decision making. A few patients stated that the tool was not influential or emphasized during their rehabilitation and expressed a lack of interest in the tool.

“I really didn’t use the chart. I looked at it two times in that whole timeframe. I mean, I don’t know how I would have felt about it. I don’t know. I didn’t use it. You know, you just said, “You’re here, they’re there and you know, you’re done with it.” (Participant 10, Patient)

Clinicians similarly had mixed perceptions regarding the tool’s usefulness for guiding treatment. One clinician mentioned that the tool facilitated consistency with outcome assessments such as the TUG. Some clinicians felt the tool was helpful for guiding decisions regarding the frequency of care and for discussing these decisions with patients.

“So, if somebody was projected to be behind, it was information we then used at the eval to see if they still were, right? And that’s a higher frequency. That’s a ‘three time-a-week-er’, for sure, because we’re behind on range of motion, we need the reps, we need the eyes.” (Participant 3, Clinician)

However, most clinicians did not feel the tool influenced their treatment plan because it only validated what they had already planned, they used it inconsistently, or because they did not need it given their clinical experience treating this population. These clinicians often mentioned that the tool could be helpful to clinicians with less experience. This idea was reinforced by a clinician who stated the tool supported their clinical communication and helped to shape their practice in an early phase of their career.

“Probably given the timing of my career, it was also influencing for me to gain confidence in my communication skills. Like, I think it really impacted my ability to deliver the message of, “yes, you’re doing well. This is what we need. No, you’re not doing well. This is what we need or you’re right where we want you. And we’re confident in X amount of weeks you’re going to get there.” (Participant 6, Clinician)

Education tool

Clinicians emphasized that the tool enabled more consistent delivery of patient education and helped them prioritize discussions with patients about recovery and treatment.

“The patient obviously is gonna get some really good information during that time. But from the clinician aspect, it really forces the clinician to kind of take a second, step back, and, and be involved in that education process.” (Participant 7, Clinician)

Several clinicians stated that the tool helped to create educational opportunities and emphasize important elements of rehabilitation. Clinicians reported using the tool to validate their clinical judgement or to reinforce and consolidate patient education.

“I keep going back to like the education, but it backs up all the things we’ve always said. But now, it’s more believable because there’s a paper that shows it.” (Participant 3, Clinician)

Understanding the “take-home” message

Most patients reported a basic understanding of the tool’s purpose, and felt they were able to interpret the reference charts during their rehabilitation. Patients frequently commented that they understood if they were meeting expectations based on the chart.

“No, I think it was fairly self-evident. Lots of people, may have a problem in understanding with what 90 percentile means, or 10 percentile means. But even without that, the lines that are drawn, I think, if you’re in the middle, it’s almost, it’s intuitive, you know, that you’re hanging in with everybody else.” (Participant 6, Patient)

Some patients highlighted factors that supported their understanding of the tool, such as having a data intense occupation or reviewing the charts with their physical therapist.

Patients also appeared to have a basic understanding that the tool was comparing them to similar people, however, the details surrounding these comparisons were not always clear. Patients frequently recalled they were being compared to people who had the same surgery and were a similar age, but few mentioned other matching variables used by the tool (e.g., sex, body mass index, preoperative status).

Overall, clinicians felt that the reference charts generated by the tool were easy to understand and use with patients, but they also identified areas for improvement to make the charts more accessible and interpretable for patients (described in next section).

Health literacy

Health literacy describes patients’ ability to understand the information provided by the tool and was impacted by their baseline ability to interpret health information, graphs, and numbers. Many patients reported being confused about aspects of the tool including its use of percentiles, line graphs, and medical jargon. Other patients could not recall what outcome measures were tracked by the tool.

“It’s just like, when you see a graph paper, it’s just checks. And it doesn’t mean anything to you, unless you write something on it. Especially old people. You have to draw a picture.” (Participant 12, Patient)

Patients offered suggestions to improve the interpretability of the charts including simplifying the “take-home” message, using more words to explain or accompany the reference charts, avoiding acronyms such as TUG, and the use of color.

Clinicians also reported that some patients were unable to meaningfully engage with or interpret the charts depending on their health literacy or prior experience with physical therapy.

“But I do think If they don’t have that underlying knowledge, some of the meaning of it might not be as relevant to them if they don’t quite get what the curve is… I don’t feel like they necessarily understood where they were, they would take my word for it, but they couldn’t look at the graph and be like, to be able to interpret that.” (Participant, Clinician 1)

Clinicians commented that some patients had difficulty interpreting what was considered a positive or negative trajectory on the chart depending on the outcome measure. For example, a lower score on the TUG and a higher degree of knee flexion both represent positive improvement. Additionally, clinicians explained that the reference charts had to be printed in black and white at their clinics, which reduced the interpretability of the color-coded legend. Overall, these challenges were perceived to decrease patients’ clarity, comprehension, and engagement with the tool. Clinicians provided suggestions to make the charts more patient friendly including adding pictures of a knee to increase the interpretability of joint angles, indicating what is a positive or negative trend on the reference chart using pictures, and linking outcome measures such as the TUG to functional tasks (e.g., walking or stairs).

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, patients and clinicians who volunteered to participate may have held more favorable views of the tool. However, we feel that we were able to capture a balanced view of the tool including both positive/negative perceptions and areas for improvement. Further, we may find different perceptions of the tool based on regional or institutional differences, thus the transferability of these results to other settings is unknown.