Leslie Wilson, Dan Dohan, Matthew Garibaldi, David Szeto, Molly Timmerman, Johnny Matheny
{"title":"Prosthesis preferences for those with upper limb loss: Discrete choice study of PULLTY® for use in regulatory decisions.","authors":"Leslie Wilson, Dan Dohan, Matthew Garibaldi, David Szeto, Molly Timmerman, Johnny Matheny","doi":"10.1177/20556683231152418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The patient's voice in shared decision-making has progressed from physician's office to regulatory decision-making for medical devices with FDA's Patient Preference Initiative. A discrete-choice preference measure for upper limb prosthetic devices was developed to investigate patient's risk/benefit preference choices for regulatory decision making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Rapid ethnographic procedures were used to design a discrete-choice measure describing risk and benefits of osseointegration with myoelectric control and test in a pilot preference study in adults with upper limb loss. Primary outcome is utility of each choice based conjoint (CBC) attribute using mixed-effects regression. Utilities with and without video, and between genders were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Strongest negative preference was for avoiding infection risk (B = -1.77, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and chance of daily pain (B = -1.22, <i>p</i>, 0.001). Strongest positive preference was for attaining complete independence when cooking dinner (B = 1.62, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and smooth grip patterns at all levels (B = 1.62, B = 1.28, B = 1.26, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Trade-offs showed a 1% increase in risk of serious/treatable infection resulted in a 1.77 decrease in relative preference. There were gender differences, and where video was used, preferences were stronger.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Strongest preferences were for attributes of functionality and independence versus connectedness and sensation but showed willingness to make risk-benefit trade-offs. Findings provide valuable information for regulatory benefit-risk decisions for prosthetic device innovations.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study is not a clinical trial reporting results of a health care intervention so is not registered.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d1/75/10.1177_20556683231152418.PMC9869218.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20556683231152418","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The patient's voice in shared decision-making has progressed from physician's office to regulatory decision-making for medical devices with FDA's Patient Preference Initiative. A discrete-choice preference measure for upper limb prosthetic devices was developed to investigate patient's risk/benefit preference choices for regulatory decision making.
Methods: Rapid ethnographic procedures were used to design a discrete-choice measure describing risk and benefits of osseointegration with myoelectric control and test in a pilot preference study in adults with upper limb loss. Primary outcome is utility of each choice based conjoint (CBC) attribute using mixed-effects regression. Utilities with and without video, and between genders were compared.
Results: Strongest negative preference was for avoiding infection risk (B = -1.77, p < 0.001) and chance of daily pain (B = -1.22, p, 0.001). Strongest positive preference was for attaining complete independence when cooking dinner (B = 1.62, p < 0.001) and smooth grip patterns at all levels (B = 1.62, B = 1.28, B = 1.26, p < 0.001). Trade-offs showed a 1% increase in risk of serious/treatable infection resulted in a 1.77 decrease in relative preference. There were gender differences, and where video was used, preferences were stronger.
Conclusions: Strongest preferences were for attributes of functionality and independence versus connectedness and sensation but showed willingness to make risk-benefit trade-offs. Findings provide valuable information for regulatory benefit-risk decisions for prosthetic device innovations.
Trial registration: This study is not a clinical trial reporting results of a health care intervention so is not registered.