Back

Preventive care in orthopaedic clinical services - testing the acceptability of an online health risk self-assessment tool using a multi-method design

Davidson, S. R.; Browne, S.; Giles, L.; Gillham, K.; Haskins, R.; Campbell, E.

2026-04-10 public and global health
10.64898/2026.04.09.26350435 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Background Musculoskeletal conditions, such as back pain and osteoarthritis, are common and disabling disorders. Musculoskeletal conditions are closely related to chronic disease risk factors like smoking/vaping, poor nutrition, alcohol misuse and physical inactivity and impact a person's risk of falling (SNAPF). Preventive care for SNAPF risks is often overlooked. Online delivery of preventive care may increase the provision of this care. We aimed to assess if an online tool for SNAPF risks would be used by and acceptable to patients waiting for an orthopaedic consultation. Methods We completed a multi-method study to test an online health risk self-assessment tool. A random sample of 300 people on the orthopaedic outpatient waiting list aged 18-64 years were sent the tool in batches of 20-50. The tool assessed SNAPF risks and provided feedback against national guidelines. After each batch, we completed feedback interviews with participants to assess acceptability and updated the tool. We summarised quantitative data using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using thematic analysis. Results Of the 300 participants sent the tool, 51.3% were female, 8.6% identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, with a mean (SD) age of 52.0 years (11.2). There were 170 participants (59.2%) who completed the tool, 117 who did not complete it, and 13 participants who were excluded from analysis because they did not receive the SMS. We conducted 184 feedback interviews, including 125 'completers' and 59 'non-completers'. The percentage of participants who felt that SMS was an appropriate way to receive the tool was 84.7% of 'completers' and 50% of 'non-completers'. The two most common reasons for not completing the tool were due to perceived risk (13/59, 22.0%), and the SMS was received at an inconvenient time (11/59, 18.6%). Qualitative data from the feedback interviews captured three enablers: i) design, ii) high importance, and iii) engagement with health service, along with four barriers: i) design, ii) risk, iii) relevance, and iv) engagement with health service. Conclusion Our study found that an online health risk self-assessment tool appears to be an acceptable way to assess chronic disease and falls risk factors for people on an orthopaedic waitlist.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 4%
26.8%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.4%
3
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
4
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
6
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.0%
9
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
10
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
11
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
12
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
16
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
17
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
19
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
20
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
22
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
23
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
24
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
26
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
27
BMC Geriatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
28
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%
29
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.7%
30
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%