This qualitative co-design study aimed to identify priorities for a health-literate intervention that combines patient education with patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) feedback for routine hand surgery and hand therapy. The research sought perspectives from patients, clinicians, therapists and administrative staff to guide development of materials and feedback processes usable across public and private hand-care contexts.
The study was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Data collection occurred in March 2026 using individual interviews and a clinician group discussion. Twelve stakeholders participated: five consumers (patients), three hand surgeons, one hand therapist and three administrative/managerial staff. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and de-identified.
A general inductive thematic analysis was performed in NVivo by one researcher; the final themes were reviewed by co-investigators. Individual-level interview transcripts are not publicly available because participant consent and ethics approval did not permit public sharing. Ethics approval was granted by the Hunter New England Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2025/ETH01957) with site-specific authorizations for participating services.
Analysis produced four principal themes that should guide design and implementation of a health-literate hand-care intervention. These themes reflect the priorities and concerns expressed by consumers, clinicians, therapists and administrative staff and inform recommendations about content, format and use of educational materials and PROM feedback.
Participants emphasised that simply providing written information is insufficient. Materials must be understandable at the patient’s literacy level, readily retained and reinforced across encounters. The study highlighted the need for repetition and reinforcement at multiple points in the care pathway so patients can recall and act on key information about diagnosis, procedures, precautions and rehabilitation.
Stakeholders recommended a clear, practical roadmap that outlines the patient journey: diagnosis, treatment options, expected recovery timelines and rehabilitation milestones. This roadmap should set concrete expectations, explain what to watch for, and provide actionable steps for recovery. Participants saw value in predictable stages and explicit guidance to reduce uncertainty and support shared decision making.
Participants supported educational resources that are multimodal (for example, written, visual and digital), reusable across visits and adaptable to individual patient needs. Materials should be flexible to accommodate different learning preferences, languages, and levels of clinical complexity. Reusable resources allow clinicians and therapists to reinforce messages consistently and permit patients to revisit content outside clinical encounters.
Stakeholders agreed that PROMs can be valuable only if they enhance the patient-clinician conversation rather than become an administrative burden. PROMs should be brief and accessible so completion is feasible in routine settings. Their central role should be to inform and structure discussion, support monitoring over time, and aid shared decisions rather than existing as isolated performance metrics.
Participants supported visual longitudinal feedback showing PROM scores over time to help monitor recovery and facilitate conversation. There was consensus for brief instruments to reduce burden.
Views diverged on benchmarking or comparison with other patients. Some participants felt group comparisons could reassure patients about expected recovery; others warned that benchmarking might create anxiety or unrealistic expectations. Therefore, group comparisons should be optional and accompanied by careful explanation about their meaning and limitations.
The study concludes that health-literate hand care requires more than readable leaflets. Services should implement repeated, practical and adaptable communication across the care pathway and embed PROM feedback within patient-clinician conversations. Recommended actions include:
These priorities, derived from a small co-design sample across public and private settings, are intended to inform the design of health-literate education and feedback interventions in hand surgery and hand therapy.
Ethics approval was obtained from the Hunter New England Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2025/ETH01957) with site-specific authorizations. The authors confirm participant consent was obtained and appropriate institutional forms archived. Individual interview transcripts are not publicly available due to consent and ethics restrictions; de-identified aggregated findings are reported in the article. The work was funded by a Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation Translational Challenge Grant (2024/TCG/0035). The authors declared no competing interests.