ObjectivesExplore individuals' lived experience with ankle osteoarthritis and to identify health-related domains for ankle osteoarthritis based on the perspectives of people living with the condition, as an initial step to address the International Foot and Ankle Osteoarthritis Consortium's recommendation to develop a core domain set for ankle osteoarthritis. MethodsA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted. Interviews were undertaken with individuals with symptomatic ankle osteoarthritis who were aged ≥35 years. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. ResultsTwenty-three individuals (16 females; mean (range) age 62 (42–80) years) were interviewed. Five themes were identified: pain, often severe, is a central feature of living with ankle osteoarthritis; stiffness and swelling are key symptoms; ankle osteoarthritis induced mobility impairments compromise enjoyment in life; ankle osteoarthritis instability and balance impairments lead to concerns about falling; there are financial implications of living with ankle osteoarthritis. We propose 17 domains based on individuals’ experiences. ConclusionStudy findings indicate that individuals with ankle osteoarthritis live with chronic ankle pain, stiffness and swelling which affect their ability to participate in physical, and social activities, maintain an active lifestyle, and work in physical occupations. From the data, we propose 17 domains that are important to people with ankle osteoarthritis. These domains require further evaluation to ascertain their inclusion in a core domain set for ankle osteoarthritis.

BackgroundThe Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale (CRIS) and Patient Specific Functional Scale 2.0 (PSFS 2.0) are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess activity limitations in patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR). This study a) compared the CRIS subscale 3 and the PSFS 2.0 in patients with CR with respect to completeness and patient preference, b) established the correlation between both PROMs in assessing the individual patient's level of functional limitations and c) assessed the frequency of reported functional limitations. MethodsParticipants with CR participated in semi-structured, individual, face-to-face interviews as part of a “think-aloud” process; verbalising their thoughts while completing both PROMs. Sessions were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. ResultsTwenty-two patients were recruited. The most frequently reported functional limitation on the CRIS was: ‘working at a computer’ (n = 17) and overhead activities' (n = 10) for the PSFS 2.0. There was significant moderate positive correlation between the scores on the PSFS 2.0 and the CRIS (Spearman's r = 0.55, n = 22 p = .008). Most patients (n = 18; 82%) preferred the ability to present their own individual functional limitations of the PSFS 2.0. Eleven participants (50%) preferred the 11-point scale of the PSFS 2.0 over the 5-point Likert scale scoring option of the CRIS. ConclusionBoth easy to complete PROMs capture functional limitations in patients with CR. Most patients prefer the PSFS 2.0 over the CRIS. The wording and layout of both PROMs need refinement to enhance user-friendliness and avoid misinterpretation.