Correction: What are the perspectives of patients with hand and wrist conditions, chronic pain, and patients recovering from stroke on the use of patient and outcome information in everyday care? A Mixed-Methods study
Auteurs:
Grada R. Arends, Nina L. Loos, Yara E. van Kooij, Kasia Tabeau, Willemijn A. de Ridder, Ruud W. Selles, Joris Veltkamp, Robbert M. Wouters, Outcome-Based Healthcare Research Group
In the original published article, the bottom part of Fig. 2 was missing. Also in the supplementary tables, the last sentence is “A negative standardized odds ratio (SOR) indicates worse understanding and positive SOR indicates better understanding.” and “A negative standardized odds ratio (SOR) indicates less perceived value and positive SOR indicates more perceived value.” However, this should be:
Odds ratios smaller than 1.0 indicate patients have a worse understanding of the outcome information and odds ratios larger than 1.0 indicate patients have a better understanding of the outcome information. (Supplementary Table 1A)
Odds ratios smaller than 1.0 indicate patients find outcome information less valuable and odds ratios larger than 1.0 indicate patients find outcome information more valuable (Supplementary Table 1B)
Patients' perspectives on the use of outcome information (n = 3379). In total, 3379 patients completed the survey. However, the number of patient answers differs per question because the questions about understanding, experience, decision-support, and value were only asked if the patient indicated that the OIT was discussed. The figure shows, for each OIT, the patient's answers to the questions: (1) How well did you understand the following OIT (0 = Not at all, 10 = Completely)? (2) How was your experience with the use of the following OIT (0 = Very negative, 10 = Very positive)? (3) To what extent did the following OIT support you in your decision-making about your treatment (0 = To no extent, 10 = To a big extent)? (4) How valuable do you think the use of the following OIT is (0 = Not valuable, 10 = Very valuable)?. Question 1 was not asked for the request for help and the treatment goals and Question 3 not for request for help, as patients complete these themselves. Question 3 was also not asked for the outcome information, as this information is only available after the start of the treatment and, therefore, cannot support the decision-making on the initial treatment choice
×
The original article has been corrected.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Binnen de bundel kunt u gebruik maken van boeken, tijdschriften, e-learnings, web-tv's en uitlegvideo's. BSL Podotherapeut Totaal is overal toegankelijk; via uw PC, tablet of smartphone.
Correction: What are the perspectives of patients with hand and wrist conditions, chronic pain, and patients recovering from stroke on the use of patient and outcome information in everyday care? A Mixed-Methods study
Auteurs
Grada R. Arends Nina L. Loos Yara E. van Kooij Kasia Tabeau Willemijn A. de Ridder Ruud W. Selles Joris Veltkamp Robbert M. Wouters Outcome-Based Healthcare Research Group
