Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Aims. This Delphi study assessed the challenges of diagnosing soft-tissue knee injuries (STKIs) in acute settings among orthopaedic healthcare stakeholders. Methods. This modified e-Delphi study consisted of three rounds and involved 32 orthopaedic healthcare stakeholders, including physiotherapists, emergency nurse practitioners, sports medicine physicians, radiologists, orthopaedic registrars, and orthopaedic consultants. The perceived importance of diagnostic components relevant to STKIs included patient and external risk factors, clinical signs and symptoms, special clinical tests, and diagnostic imaging methods. Each round required scoring and ranking various items on a ten-point Likert scale. The items were refined as each round progressed. The study produced rankings of perceived importance across the various diagnostic components. Results. In Round 1, the study revealed widespread variability in stakeholder opinions on diagnostic components of STKIs. Round 2 identified patterns in the perceived importance of specific items within each diagnostic component. Round 3 produced rankings of perceived item importance within each diagnostic component. Noteworthy findings include the challenges associated with accurate and readily available diagnostic methods in acute care settings, the consistent acknowledgment of the importance of adopting a patient-centred approach to diagnosis, and the transition from divergent to convergent opinions between Rounds 2 and 3. Conclusion. This study highlights the potential for a paradigm shift in acute STKI diagnosis, where variability in the understanding of STKI diagnostic components may be addressed by establishing a uniform, evidence-based framework for evaluating these injuries. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(11):984–991

Background. Evidence-based practice advocates utilising best current research evidence, while reflecting patient preference and clinical expertise in decision making. Successfully incorporating this evidence into practice is a complex process. Based on recommendations of existing guidelines and systematic evidence reviews conducted using the GRADE approach, treatment pathways for common spinal pain disorders were developed. Aims. The aim of this study was to identify important potential facilitators to the integration of these pathways into routine clinical practice. Methods. A 22 person stakeholder group consisting of patient representatives, clinicians, researchers and members of relevant clinical interest groups took part in a series of moderated focus groups, followed up with individual, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results. Participants identified a number of issues which were categorized into broad themes. Common facilitators to implementation included continual education and synthesis of research evidence which is reflective of everyday practice; as well as the use of clear, unambiguous messages in recommendations. Meeting additional training needs in new or extended areas of practice was also recognized as an important factor. Different stakeholders identified specific areas which could be associated with successful uptake. Patients frequently defined early involvement in a shared decision making process as important. Clinicians identified case based examples and information on important prognostic indicators as useful tools to aiding decisions. Conclusion. A number of potential implementation strategies were identified. Further work will examine the impact of these and other important factors on the integration of evidence-based treatment recommendations into clinical practice

Aims. Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice. Methods. A consensus exercise was conducted involving all the major stakeholders in the patient journey for those with musculoskeletal injury. The consensus exercise primary aim was to seek agreement on a standardized set of terminology for weightbearing instructions. Results. A pre-meeting questionnaire was conducted. The one-day consensus meeting, including patient representatives, identified three agreed terms only to be used in defining the weightbearing status of the patient: 1) non-weightbearing; 2) limited weightbearing; and 3) unrestricted weightbearing. Conclusion. This study represents the first and only exercise in standardizing rehabilitation terminology in orthopaedics, as agreed by all major stakeholders in the patient pathway and the patients themselves. The standardization of language allows for higher-quality and more accurate research to be conducted, and is one small part of the bigger picture in increasing the mobility of patients after orthopaedic injury or surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):1016–1020

Aims. The aim of this study is to define a core outcome set (COS) to allow consistency in outcome reporting amongst studies investigating the management of orthopaedic treatment in children with spinal dysraphism (SD). Methods. Relevant outcomes will be identified in a four-stage process from both the literature and key stakeholders (patients, their families, and clinical professionals). Previous outcomes used in clinical studies will be identified through a systematic review of the literature, and each outcome will be assigned to one of the five core areas, defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Additional possible outcomes will be identified through consultation with patients affected by SD and their families. Results. Outcomes identified in these stages will be included in a two-round Delphi process that will involve key stakeholders in the management of SD. A final list including the identified outcomes will then be summarized in a consensus meeting attended by representatives of the key stakeholders groups. Conclusion. The best approach to provision of orthopaedic care in patients with SD is yet to be decided. The reporting of different outcomes to define success among studies, often based on personal preferences and local culture, has made it difficult to compare the effect of treatments for this condition. The development of a COS for orthopaedic management in SD will enable meaningful reporting and facilitate comparisons in future clinical trials, thereby assisting complex decision-making in the clinical management of these children. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):54–60

Aims. Open lower limb fracture is life-changing, resulting in substantial morbidity and resource demand, while inconsistent outcome-reporting hampers systematic review and meta-analysis. A core outcome set establishes consensus among key stakeholders for the recommendation of a minimum set of outcomes. This study aims to define a core outcome set for adult open lower limb fracture. Methods. Candidate outcomes were identified from a previously published systematic review and a secondary thematic analysis of 25 patient interviews exploring the lived experience of recovery from open lower limb fracture. Outcomes were categorized and sequentially refined using healthcare professional and patient structured discussion groups. Consensus methods included a multi-stakeholder two-round online Delphi survey and a consensus meeting attended by a purposive sample of stakeholders, facilitated discussion, and voting using a nominal group technique. Results. Thematic analysis and systematic review identified 121 unique outcomes, reduced to 68 outcomes following structured discussion groups. Outcomes were presented to 136 participants who completed a two-round online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey resulted in 11 outcomes identified as consensus ‘in’ only. All outcomes were discussed at a consensus meeting attended by 15 patients, 14 healthcare professionals, 11 researchers, and one patient-carer. Consensus was achieved for a four-core outcome set: ‘Walking, gait and mobility’, ‘Being able to return to life roles’, ‘Pain or discomfort’, and ‘Quality of life’. Conclusion. This study used robust consensus methods to establish a core outcome set that should be measured in all future research studies and audits of clinical practice without precluding the measurement of additional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):294–305

Aims. To explore key stakeholder views around feasibility and acceptability of trials seeking to prevent post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) following knee injury, and provide guidance for next steps in PTOA trial design. Methods. Healthcare professionals, clinicians, and/or researchers (HCP/Rs) were surveyed, and the data were presented at a congress workshop. A second and related survey was then developed for people with joint damage caused by knee injury and/or osteoarthritis (PJDs), who were approached by a UK Charity newsletter or Oxford involvement registry. Anonymized data were collected and analyzed in Qualtrics. Results. Survey responses (n = 19 HCP/Rs, 39 PJDs) supported studies testing pharmacological agents preventing PTOA. All HCP/Rs and 30/31 (97%) PJDs supported the development of new treatments that improved or delayed knee symptoms and damage to knee structure. PJDs thought that improving structural knee damage was more important than knee symptoms. Both groups found studies more acceptable as expected future benefit and risk of PTOA increased. All drug delivery routes were acceptable. Workshop participants (around n = 60) reflected survey views. Discussions suggested that stratifying using molecular testing for likely drug response appeared to be more acceptable than using characteristics such as sex, age, and BMI. Conclusion. Our findings supported PTOA drug intervention studies, including situations where there is low risk of disease, no expected benefit of treatment, and frequent treatment administration. PJDs appeared less risk-averse than HCP/Rs. This work reinforces the benefits of consensus and involvement work in the co-creation of PTOA drug trial design. Involvement of key stakeholders, such as PJDs with different risks of OA and regulatory representatives, are critical for trial design success. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):513–524

Aims. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set of what to measure in all future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. Methods. Phase 1 consisted of steps to identify potential outcome domains through systematic review of published studies, and exploration of the patient perspective through qualitative research, consisting of 25 semi-structured interviews and five focus groups. Phase 2 involved key stakeholder groups (patients, hand surgeons, and hand therapists) prioritizing the outcome domains via a three-round international Delphi survey, with a final consensus meeting to agree the final core outcome set. Results. The systematic review of 160 studies identified 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Overall, 35 domains were generated through thematic analysis of the patient interviews and focus groups. The domains from these elements were synthesised to develop 37 outcome domains as the basis of the Delphi survey, with a further four generated from participant suggestions in Round 1. The Delphi survey identified 20 outcome domains as ‘very important’ for the core outcome set. At the consensus meeting, 27 participants from key stakeholder groups selected seven outcomes for the core outcome set: pain/discomfort with activity, pain/discomfort with rest, fine hand use/dexterity, self-hygiene/personal care, return to usual work/job, range of motion, and patient satisfaction with outcome/result. Conclusion. This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum to be reported in all clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. While this establishes what to measure, future work will focus on determining how best to measure these outcomes. By adopting this patient-centred core outcome set, consistency and comparability of studies will be improved, aiding meta-analysis and strengthening the evidence base for management of these common and impactful injuries. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):87–95

Abstract. INTRODUCTION. In the NHS the structure of a “regular healthcare team” is no longer the case. The NHS is facing a workforce crisis where cross-covering of ward-based health professionals is at an all-time high, this includes nurses, doctors, therapists, pharmacists and clerks. Comprehensive post-operative care documentation is essential to maintain patient safety, reduce information clarification requests, delays in rehabilitation, treatment, and investigations. The value of complete surgical registry data is emerging, and in the UK this has recently become mandated, but the completeness of post-operative care documentation is not held to the same importance, and at present there is no published standard. This project summarises a 4-stage approach, including 6 audit cycles, >400 reviewed operation notes, over a 5 year period. OBJECTIVE. To deliver a sustainable change in post operative care documentation practices through quality improvement frameworks. METHODS. Stage 1: Characterise the problem and increase engagement through: SMART aims, process mapping, hybrid action-effect and driver diagram and stakeholder analysis. Multi disciplinary stakeholders were involved in achieving a consensus of evidence-based auditable criteria. Stage 2: Baseline audit to assess current practice. Stage 3: Intervention planning by stakeholders. Stage 4: Longitudinal monitoring through run charts and iterative refinement. RESULTS. Stage 1: Process mapping identified numerous downstream effects of the absence of critical information from operation notes, and the action-effect diagram highlighted the multiple unnecessary mitigating actions performed by ward staff. An MDT consensus was achieved on 15 essential criteria for complete documentation, including important negative fields. Interest-influence matrix identified stakeholder groups with high influence but low interest who needed engagement to deliver change. Stage 2: Baseline audit demonstrated unexpectedly poor documentation: >75% compliance in 4 criteria, and <50% compliance in 10 criteria, which elevated the interest of key stakeholders. Stage 3: A post-operative care template based on the 15 criteria was embedded within the existing IT software. It allowed use of existing operative templates, with a non-overwriting suffix requiring only two mouse clicks. Stage 4: Re-audit at 3 and 12 months showed improved and sustained compliance. At 24 months compliance had declined. Questionnaire of template usage identified problems of criteria response options, and lack of awareness of template by newly appointed staff. Template update improved compliance over the next 6 months (>75% compliance in 11 criteria). Finally, a further reaudit conducted 12 months after the template update (5 years post baseline audit) showed a sustained improvement in compliance (>75% compliance in 13 criteria). CONCLUSIONS. Simple innovation through quality improvement frameworks has changed documentation practices by 1) achieving a consensus from stakeholders, 2) a “shock and awe” moment to highlight existing poor documentation and increase engagement 3) implementing change which fit easily into existing systems, 4) respecting autonomy rather than enforcing change and 5) longitudinal monitoring using run charts and an iterative process to ensure the template remains fit for purpose. This model has now successfully been translated to other subspecialities within the orthopaedic department. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Aims. This study aims to define a set of core outcomes (COS) to allow consistent reporting in order to compare results and assist in treatment decisions for idiopathic clubfoot. Methods. A list of outcomes will be obtained in a three-stage process from the literature and from key stakeholders (patients, parents, surgeons, and healthcare professionals). Important outcomes for patients and parents will be collected from a group of children with idiopathic clubfoot and their parents through questionnaires and interviews. The outcomes identified during this process will be combined with the list of outcomes previously obtained from a systematic review, with each outcome assigned to one of the five core areas defined by the Outcome Measures Recommended for use in Randomized Clinical Trials (OMERACT). This stage will be followed by a two round Delphi survey aimed at key stakeholders in the management of idiopathic clubfoot. The final outcomes list obtained will then be discussed in a consensus meeting of representative key stakeholders. Conclusion. The inconsistency in outcomes reporting in studies investigating idiopathic clubfoot has made it difficult to define the success rate of treatments and to compare findings between studies. The development of a COS seeks to define a minimum standard set of outcomes to collect in all future clinical trials for this condition, to facilitate comparisons between studies and to aid decisions in treatment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):255–260

Background. A local authority approached us, for a cost-beneficial solution to their increasing low back pain referrals. We proposed developing a student-led clinic – an intervention delivered by students but supervised by clinicians. We then conducted scoping reviews on student-led clinics in the management of health conditions and on the self-management of back pain. The findings suggested that student-led self-management interventions for low back health should be feasible. The next step was to co-construct the intervention with key stakeholders. Co-Construction. A hybrid of Action Research and Design Science methodology was used to co-construct the intervention with five key stakeholder groups (council staff, managers and human resources, employee healthcare, students, and lecturers). Three rounds of focus groups explored the ‘problem’, the possible solutions, the process, and the content. Themes were taken from each of these focus groups and the similarities and differences were analysed. This analysis and subsequent synthesis with the evidence base created potential intervention models, which were discussed and refined with the stakeholder groups. Intervention. The proposed intervention is focused on providing evidence informed biopsychosocial support for work-relevant back pain, based on identifying obstacles and solutions to improve coping with back health at work. An onboarding workshop challenges positively their thinking around back pain and work. This is followed by up to three 1:1 sessions that support the individual to identify work-relevant back health goals and agree a plan to achieve them using techniques to facilitate behaviour change. Conclusion. The intervention is evidence informed and aims to address the prioritised needs of the stakeholders. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. National Health Service Education

In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):422–424

Background. Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial. Objectives. To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions. Methods. Three Delphi rounds with 64 experts in placebo research and/or non-pharmacological clinical trials were conducted. The panel was presented with a systematic review and meta-analysis of control and blinding methods. A draft guidance document included 63 consensus items (≥80% agreement) and was discussed with patient partners. Finally, the draft guidance and results from stakeholder interviews were discussed at consensus meetings with Delphi participants and patient representatives. Results. Forty-four experts completed the process. When treatment efficacy or mechanisms are to be studied, the advocated principle is to design control interventions as similar as possible to the tested intervention, apart from the components that the study examines. Structured reasoning in the planning phase, early engagement with stakeholders, feasibility work, and piloting will enhance the quality and acceptability of control interventions. With participant blinding being a primary objective, blinding effectiveness should be routinely assessed and reported. Transparent and detailed reporting will improve interpretability and repeatability of clinical trials. Conclusion. This guideline provides the much-needed standards to enhance the quality of efficacy clinical trials in physical, psychological, and self-management intervention research, ultimately improving patient care. Study registration: . https://osf.io/jmyhq/. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Sources of Funding: Alain and Sheila Diamond Charitable Trust PhD Studentship

Aims. A core outcome set for adult, open lower limb fracture has been established consisting of ‘Walking, gait and mobility’, ‘Being able to return to life roles’, ‘Pain or discomfort’, and ‘Quality of life’. This study aims to identify which outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) should be recommended to measure each core outcome. Methods. A systematic review and quality assessment were conducted to identify existing instruments with evidence of good measurement properties in the open lower limb fracture population for each core outcome. Additionally, shortlisting criteria were developed to identify suitable instruments not validated in the target population. Candidate instruments were presented, discussed, and voted on at a consensus meeting of key stakeholders. Results. The Wales Lower Limb Trauma Recovery scale was identified, demonstrating validation evidence in the target population. In addition, ten candidate OMIs met the shortlisting criteria. Six patients, eight healthcare professionals, and 11 research methodologists attended the consensus meeting. Consensus was achieved for the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) to measure ‘Quality of life’ and ‘Walking, gait and mobility’ in future research trials, audit, and clinical assessment, respectively. No instrument met consensus criteria to measure ‘Being able to return to life roles’ and ‘Pain or discomfort’. However, the EQ-5D-5L was found to demonstrate good face validity and could also be used pragmatically to measure these two outcomes, accepting limitations in sensitivity. Conclusion. This study recommends the LEFS and EQ-5D-5L to measure the core outcome set for adult open lower limb fracture. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):352–361

Aims. To describe outcome reporting variation and trends in non-pharmacological randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of distal tibia and/or ankle fractures. Methods. Five electronic databases and three clinical trial registries were searched (January 2000 to February 2022). Trials including patients with distal tibia and/or ankle fractures without concomitant injuries were included. One reviewer conducted all searches, screened titles and abstracts, assessed eligibility, and completed data extraction; a random 10% subset were independently assessed and extracted by a second reviewer at each stage. All extracted outcomes were mapped to a modified version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. The quality of outcome reporting (reproducibility) was assessed. Results. Overall, 105 trials (n = 16 to 669 participants) from 27 countries were included. Trials compared surgical interventions (n = 62), post-surgical management options (n = 17), rehabilitative interventions (n = 14), surgical versus non-surgical interventions (n = 6), and pre-surgical management strategies (n = 5). In total, 888 outcome assessments were reported across seven domains: 263 assessed body structure or function (85.7% of trials), 136 activities (68.6% of trials), 34 participation (23.8% of trials), 159 health-related quality of life (61.9% of trials), 247 processes of care (80% of trials), 21 patient experiences (15.2% of trials), and 28 economic impact (8.6% of trials). From these, 337 discrete outcomes were described. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across trials. The quality of reporting varied widely (reproducibility ranged 4.8% patient experience to 100% complications). Conclusion. Substantial heterogeneity in outcome selection, assessment methods, and reporting quality were described. Despite the large number of outcomes, few are reported across multiple trials. Most outcomes are clinically focused, with little attention to the long-term consequences important to patients. Poor reporting quality reduces confidence in data quality, inhibiting data synthesis by which to inform care decisions. Outcome reporting guidance and standardization, which captures the outcomes that matter to multiple stakeholders, are urgently required. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):832–840

Aims. The aim of this study is to develop a core set of outcome domains that should be considered and reported in all future trials of childhood limb fractures. Methods. A four-phase study was conducted to agree a set of core outcome domains. Identification of candidate outcome domains were identified through systematic review of trials, and outcome domains relevant to families were identified through semi-structured interviews with 20 families (parent-child pairing or group). Outcome domains were prioritized using an international three-round Delphi survey with 205 panellists and then condensed into a core outcome set through a consensus workshop with 30 stakeholders. Results. The systematic review and interviews identified 85 outcome domains as relevant to professionals or families. The Delphi survey prioritized 30 upper and 29 lower limb outcome domains at first round, an additional 17 upper and 18 lower limb outcomes at second round, and four additional outcomes for upper and lower limb at the third round as important domains. At the consensus workshop, the core outcome domains were agreed as: 1) pain and discomfort; 2) return to physical and recreational activities; 3) emotional and psychosocial wellbeing; 4) complications from the injury and treatment; 5) rturn to baseline activities daily living; 6) participation in learning; 7) appearance and deformity; and 8) time to union. In addition, 9a) recovery of mobility and 9b) recovery of manual dexterity was recommended as a core outcome for lower and upper limb fractures, respectively. Conclusion. This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials. It is not an exhaustive set and further work is required to identify what outcome tools should be used to measure each of these outcomes. Adoption of this outcome set will improve the consistency of research for these children that can be combined for more meaningful meta-analyses and policy development. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1821–1830

Aims. To identify the minimum set of outcomes that should be collected in clinical practice and reported in research related to the care of children with idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV). Methods. A list of outcome measurement tools (OMTs) was obtained from the literature through a systematic review. Further outcomes were collected from patients and families through a questionnaire and interview process. The combined list, as well as the appropriate follow-up timepoint, was rated for importance in a two-round Delphi process that included an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, nurse practitioners, patients, and families. Outcomes that reached no consensus during the Delphi process were further discussed and scored for inclusion/exclusion in a final consensus meeting involving international stakeholder representatives of practitioners, families, and patient charities. Results. In total, 39 OMTs were included from the systematic review. Two additional OMTs were identified from the interviews and questionnaires, and four were added after round one Delphi. Overall, 22 OMTs reached ‘consensus in’ during the Delphi and two reached ‘consensus out’; 21 OMTs reached ‘no consensus’ and were included in the final consensus meeting. In all, 21 participants attended the consensus meeting, including a wide diversity of clubfoot practitioners, parent/patient representative, and an independent chair. A total of 21 outcomes were discussed and voted upon; six were voted ‘in’ and 15 were voted ‘out’. The final COS document includes nine OMTs and two existing outcome scores with a total of 31 outcome parameters to be collected after a minimum follow-up of five years. It incorporates static and dynamic clinical findings, patient-reported outcome measures, and a definition of CTEV relapse. Conclusion. We have defined a minimum set of outcomes to draw comparisons between centres and studies in the treatment of CTEV. With the use of these outcomes, we hope to allow more meaningful research and a better clinical management of CTEV. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):98–106

Background. Chronic pain is a significant burden and represents a major issue for world healthcare systems. Interventions include medication, surgery, pain management programmes, and social support through peer support groups. These groups are often informal, providing informational, emotional, and social support to members. The aim of this project is to co-produce guidance on how to establish a peer support programme for people living with chronic, non-cancer pain that is informed by evidence, theory, and stakeholder experience. Methods. This project is using Steps 1–4 of the Intervention Mapping (IM) approach to inform the research. Online workshops consisting of people living with chronic pain, third sector representatives, healthcare professionals, and researchers are being used to co-produce the guidance. Results. To date, 2 of the 4 planned workshops have been conducted. These have identified the needs of people living with chronic pain, goals for the peer support programme, and expectations of how a peer support programme should be executed. Topics for inclusion in the programme and their content have been identified, with further workshops to refine this planned. The final stage of this project will identify methods of delivery, specific resources that should be developed, and the training to be provided to peer support volunteers. Conclusion. The project has identified the diverse needs of people living with chronic pain and how these may be addressed by a peer support programme. It has identified flexible options that can be recommended to those who want to set up a programme and a variety content that may be included. Conflicts of Interest. None. Sources of Funding. Robert Gordon University

Background. Our current research aims to develop technologies to predict spinal loads in vivo using a combination of imaging and modelling methods. To ensure the project's success and inform future applications of the technology, we sought to understand the opinions and perspectives of patients and the public. Methods. A 90-minute public and patient involvement event was developed in collaboration with Exeter Science Centre and held on World Spine Day 2023. The event involved a brief introduction to the project goals followed by an interactive questionnaire to gauge the participants’ background knowledge and interest. The participants then discussed five topics: communication, future directions of the research, concerns about the research protocol, concerns about data, and interest in the project team and research process. A final questionnaire was used to determine their thoughts about the event. Results. Twelve adults attended the event, many motivated by their experience or interest in back pain. A thematic analysis was used to review participant comments on the research project, identifying the need to relate the research to everyday life, present risks in various ways, and be transparent about funding and data sharing. In terms of future applications, participants felt the technology should be used to understand normal spine behaviour, prevent problems, and improve treatment. Participants agreed that they had got something positive out of engaging in the event. Conclusion. Engagement with public and patient stakeholders is an essential activity that can generate vital information to inform and add value to technology development projects. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. EPSRC grants EP/V036602/1 (Meakin, Holsgrove & Javadi) and EP/V032275/1 (Holt & Williams)