The Development and Pilot Study of a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Compare Patient and Provider Priorities around Amputation-Level Outcomes

Author:

Poehler Diana1ORCID,Czerniecki Joseph2,Norvell Daniel32,Henderson Alison3,Dolan James4ORCID,Devine Beth51

Affiliation:

1. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

3. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Veterans Affairs Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), Seattle, WA, USA

4. Department of Public Health Sciences (Retired), University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

5. The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Abstract

Background. Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who are facing a lower-limb amputation often require a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA) or a transtibial amputation (TTA). A TMA preserves more of the patient’s limb and may provide better mobility but has a lower probability of primary wound healing relative to a TTA and may result in additional amputation surgeries. Understanding the differences in how patients and providers prioritize key outcomes may enhance the amputation decisional process. Purpose. To develop and pilot test a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to elicit patient values around amputation-level selection and compare those with provider perceptions of patient values. Methods. We conducted literature reviews to identify and measure the performance of criteria important to patients. Because the quantitative literature was sparse, we developed a Sheffield elicitation framework exercise to elicit criteria performance from subject matter experts. We piloted our MCDA among patients and providers to understand tool acceptability and preliminarily assess differences in patient and provider priorities. Results. Five criteria of importance were identified: ability to walk, healing after amputation surgery, rehabilitation intensity, limb length, and prosthetic/orthotic device ease. Patients and providers successfully completed the MCDA and identified challenges in doing so. We propose potential solutions to these challenges. The results of the pilot test suggest differences in patient and provider outcome priorities. Limitations. The pilot test study enrolled a small sample of providers and patients. Conclusions. We successfully implemented the pilot study to patients and providers, received helpful feedback, and identified solutions to improve the tool. Implications. Once modified, our MCDA tool will be suitable for wider rollout. Highlights Patients and providers have successfully completed our MCDA, and patients feel the MCDA may be useful in clinical practice. We encountered several methodologic challenges and identified approaches to ease participant burden. When data are sparse, using the Sheffield elicitation framework is helpful in creating a performance matrix, although patients relied largely on their amputation experiences to complete the exercise. Blinding the alternatives may help patients better understand the process.

Funder

US Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, Rehabilitation Research and Development

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3