Table 3 Topics mentioned in the brief open interview about TREAT (clinicians)

TREAT improved the efficiency of the treatment session. ⁵

The treatment recommendations were sometimes repetitive, when patients had already received certain treatment options in the past. ^1,3

TREAT was a good reminder to talk about certain topics, which otherwise might be forgotten. ^3,5

The specific diagnosis of the patient was not mentioned in TREAT. ³

The visual feedback was experienced as pleasant. ³

The treatment recommendations did not add much, new information. It was however convenient to explicitly go through the different options. ⁴

The visualizations were especially useful for the patient and it led to more shared-decision making. ¹

The cut-off scores for the somatic parameters in TREAT were different than the cut-off scores the general practitioner uses. This is confusing. ²

Because of TREAT the discussion of the ROM results became a more explicit moment to make decisions. ¹

The print version of TREAT was too long. The graphs take up much space. ²

When the treatment guidelines change, TREAT needs to be updated. The maintenance of TREAT is important. ²

The information the ROM nurse added to the ROM results did not appear in TREAT. Because of this, important information was sometimes missing. ²

ROM-Phamous was confusing and TREAT has made this better and clearer. ⁶

It is a risk that clinicians will only follow TREAT and forget about other potential problems. ⁵

Certain treatment options in the recommendations were new and I would not have thought of these options without TREAT. An example was ‘peer support groups’. ⁶

It would be helpful if TREAT could also lead to a template for a treatment plan. ⁵

The treatment session was more structured and I had the feeling we had discussed all the important issues, because of TREAT. ⁵

It would be nice to be able to compare ROM results of previous years with current results. ¹