Understanding Stakeholder Priorities in Dupuytren Disease: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no recommended standard set of outcomes to report in Dupuytren disease treatment studies, nor are there guidelines on how the outcomes themselves should be reported. This study aimed to elicit the most salient issues for patients living with and undergoing treatment for Dupuytren disease, as well as for the hand surgeons, occupational therapists, and physical therapists caring for these patients. METHODS: A qualitative, interpretive description study employing one-on-one semi-structured interviews was conducted. Ten surgeons, 12 occupational and physical therapists, and 10 patients were interviewed. RESULTS: Priorities related to Dupuytren disease treatment and recovery differed by stakeholder group. Surgeons prioritized range of motion, recovery time, and recurrence. Physical and occupational therapists frequently mentioned range of motion, grip strength, activities of daily living, return to meaningful activities, wound healing, edema, lack of sensation, and pain as important treatment outcomes. Patients described extension deficit, activities of daily living, holding objects, and lack of sensation. CONCLUSIONS: Through the present study, we have identified outcomes of high importance to patients, hand surgeons, occupational therapists, and physical therapists. These results can be used to inform the development of a core outcome set for Dupuytren contracture.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".