Qualitative analysis of Achilles rupture: NHS patient journeys

This PLOS One study (29 June 2026) shows non-surgically managed Achilles tendon rupture patients in the UK face diagnostic and boot-management gaps and a rehabilitation pathway marked by fear and self-management challenges. Researchers and clinicians can reproduce these findings using reflexive thematic analysis on purposive samples (the study used n=15) and by adding cross-segment analyses to design targeted service changes.

• The study (PLOS One, 29 June 2026) used 15 semi-structured interviews, mean participant age 54.5, and a mean 8.9 months since injury at interview.
• Three main themes emerged: entry to care, boot immobilisation, and rehabilitation with fear of re-rupture and functional concerns.
• Operational gaps reported include inconsistent boot guidance, hygiene and self-adjustment problems, difficulty contacting services, and missing psychological support.

This reflexive thematic analysis documents how non-surgically managed Achilles tendon rupture patients in the UK experience diagnosis, boot immobilisation, and a psychologically fraught rehabilitation journey. Read the original study at PLOS One.

• Audience: UX and clinical researchers, physiotherapy teams, trialists, and service designers.
• Payoff: Extract reproducible themes, compare subgroups (for example age and mechanism), and produce stakeholder-ready outputs with Evidano.

This section explains the study design, sampling, data handling, and analysis in plain English. Design: Semi-structured, one-to-one interviews analysed with reflexive thematic analysis using the Braun and Clarke framework. Ethics: London – Bromley Research Ethics Committee (22/PR/1720).

• Sampling: The study used purposive recruitment from a specialist NHS Achilles tendon rupture clinic, with n=15 and saturation assessed after 10 interviews.
• Data: The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in NVivo v12.
• Analysis: Two researchers coded independently, themes were reviewed by the author team, and COREQ reporting was followed.

This checklist summarises the exact steps to reanalyse the study interviews or run a new cohort analysis using the workflow described. Follow these seven practical steps to go from raw audio to stakeholder-ready outputs:

• 1) Gather raw audio and transcripts and confirm consent metadata; anonymise PII before upload or use platform PII redaction.
• 2) Transcribe with a custom dictionary (for example LAMP, Vacoped) to improve terminology accuracy.
• 3) Import transcripts and run an initial automated code extraction, then export the suggested code list.
• 4) Invite a small analyst panel to review and refine codes using human-in-the-loop annotation.
• 5) Run thematic grouping and cross-segment frequency analysis (age, sport vs non-sport mechanism, time since injury).
• 6) Produce visuals: code hierarchies, co-occurrence networks, and a quote bank filtered by code and segment.
• 7) Package a 1–2 page stakeholder brief and an editable slide deck for physiotherapy teams or service leads.

This PLOS One study (29 June 2026) is a concise example of how patient narratives reveal operational gaps in non-surgical Achilles tendon rupture care, specifically boot hygiene, self-adjustment, and fear of re-rupture. Evidano maps directly onto these needs with secure ingestion, precise transcription, replicable thematic and cross-segment analyses, and stakeholder-ready visual exports.

• Ready to reanalyse interviews or run a pilot on your ATR cohort? Try Evidano for free and turn qualitative signals into service improvements in days.