Lived experience of people with painful hallux valgus: A descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hallux valgus has a detrimental impact on health-related quality of life. Education is crucial for the management of all musculoskeletal conditions, although no previous research has evaluated the sources and quality of education accessed by patients with hallux valgus. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the perceptions and attitudes of individuals with hallux valgus, including their educational experiences. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was employed to gather data from individuals diagnosed with painful hallux valgus. Semi-structured interviews explored the perceptions, attitudes and educational experiences of participants. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Framework Method. Respondent validation was used to ensure the rigour of the study findings. RESULTS: Ten participants were interviewed, ages 26-72. Data analysis revealed five themes including the impact of hallux valgus, coping with hallux valgus, cause of hallux valgus, health professional support and education received. Hallux valgus was associated with a negative impact on health-related quality of life. Participants described a lack of high quality, accurate and reliable educational resources, and a variable experience with health professionals, which was often characterised by a lack of engagement and commitment and an overemphasis of referrals for specialist opinion. CONCLUSION: Hallux valgus has a negative influence on well-being, including physical, mental, and social impacts. Health professionals should be responsive to patient needs and strive to implement person-centred care when indicated. There is also a need for the development of high-quality educational resources to help people with hallux valgus make informed decisions about their condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".