Outcomes and Preferences for Decision-Making for Upper Limb Prosthetic Care: The Patient Journey: A Scoping Literature Review

IF 1.9 Q2 REHABILITATION
Leslie Wilson PhD , Mark Gutin PharmD , Timothy Banh PhD , Elizabeth Gress MPA , Todd Castleberry PhD , Siya Asatkar BS , Peggy Tahir MLIS , Michael P. Douglas MS , Shane R. Wurdeman PhD
{"title":"Outcomes and Preferences for Decision-Making for Upper Limb Prosthetic Care: The Patient Journey: A Scoping Literature Review","authors":"Leslie Wilson PhD ,&nbsp;Mark Gutin PharmD ,&nbsp;Timothy Banh PhD ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Gress MPA ,&nbsp;Todd Castleberry PhD ,&nbsp;Siya Asatkar BS ,&nbsp;Peggy Tahir MLIS ,&nbsp;Michael P. Douglas MS ,&nbsp;Shane R. Wurdeman PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.arrct.2025.100460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To identify key concepts or themes and map the breadth of evidence describing the current decision-making process for prostheses between individuals with upper limb loss/difference (ULL/D) and prosthetists using a scoping review.</div></div><div><h3>Data Sources</h3><div>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cumulative index to Nursing and Allied Health Literuature (CINAHL) databases to identify studies using PRISMA guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Study Selection</h3><div>Qualitative, quantitative, quasi-experimental, randomized controlled studies or mixed methods studies in the English language with adults ≥18 years involving ULL/D from any cause were included. Studies were required to provide outcome measures, decision aids, discrete choice or other preference measurement methods, patient satisfaction, quality of life, cost, and choice characteristics of prostheses.</div></div><div><h3>Data Extraction</h3><div>Characteristics were extracted from each study including study aim, author, publication year, country, sampling strategy, sample size, data collection methods, analysis, outcome or survey type, approach or discussion of prosthetic preference or choice, model or description of the prosthetic, results, and attributes or factors of decision-making. Two individuals assessed study quality using the 2018 validated Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative studies checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Data Synthesis</h3><div>Of the 1388 studies, 67 were included. Our findings reveal a variety of study types and purposes that together describe factors important to a complex decision-making process. We conceptualized 5 main themes to create our literature landscape: (1) adequacy of outcomes/measures used, (2) extent of preference research, (3) prosthesis type comparisons, (4) factors critical to decision-making, and (5) the prescription process. A personalized approach to decision-making was stressed but there were only 5 prosthetic preference studies. We identified a list of the major factors or attributes important when choosing a prosthetic to be used in preference research; functionality, appearance, grip characteristics, durability, weight, and cost. We suggest a “user complexity” construct to integrate the studies on technology and users’ choices.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>To the best of our knowledge, this is the first literature review to focus on preference measurements. Despite this lack of preference studies, there was consensus on the importance of including the patient’s voice into the prosthetic choice through the prescription process. Our findings synthesize a body of literature that is not well organized or generalizable enough to help individuals and prosthetists make prosthesis decisions. Our insights can guide shared decision-making and improve prosthetic prescription.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72291,"journal":{"name":"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation","volume":"7 2","pages":"Article 100460"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590109525000357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To identify key concepts or themes and map the breadth of evidence describing the current decision-making process for prostheses between individuals with upper limb loss/difference (ULL/D) and prosthetists using a scoping review.

Data Sources

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cumulative index to Nursing and Allied Health Literuature (CINAHL) databases to identify studies using PRISMA guidelines.

Study Selection

Qualitative, quantitative, quasi-experimental, randomized controlled studies or mixed methods studies in the English language with adults ≥18 years involving ULL/D from any cause were included. Studies were required to provide outcome measures, decision aids, discrete choice or other preference measurement methods, patient satisfaction, quality of life, cost, and choice characteristics of prostheses.

Data Extraction

Characteristics were extracted from each study including study aim, author, publication year, country, sampling strategy, sample size, data collection methods, analysis, outcome or survey type, approach or discussion of prosthetic preference or choice, model or description of the prosthetic, results, and attributes or factors of decision-making. Two individuals assessed study quality using the 2018 validated Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative studies checklist.

Data Synthesis

Of the 1388 studies, 67 were included. Our findings reveal a variety of study types and purposes that together describe factors important to a complex decision-making process. We conceptualized 5 main themes to create our literature landscape: (1) adequacy of outcomes/measures used, (2) extent of preference research, (3) prosthesis type comparisons, (4) factors critical to decision-making, and (5) the prescription process. A personalized approach to decision-making was stressed but there were only 5 prosthetic preference studies. We identified a list of the major factors or attributes important when choosing a prosthetic to be used in preference research; functionality, appearance, grip characteristics, durability, weight, and cost. We suggest a “user complexity” construct to integrate the studies on technology and users’ choices.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first literature review to focus on preference measurements. Despite this lack of preference studies, there was consensus on the importance of including the patient’s voice into the prosthetic choice through the prescription process. Our findings synthesize a body of literature that is not well organized or generalizable enough to help individuals and prosthetists make prosthesis decisions. Our insights can guide shared decision-making and improve prosthetic prescription.
上肢假肢护理的结果和决策偏好:患者旅程:范围文献综述
目的通过范围综述,确定关键概念或主题,并绘制描述上肢丧失/差异(ULL/D)患者和义肢医生之间当前义肢决策过程的证据广度。我们检索了PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和护理与相关健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)数据库,以确定使用PRISMA指南的研究。研究选择包括定性、定量、准实验、随机对照或混合方法的英语研究,成人≥18岁,涉及任何原因的ULL/D。研究需要提供结果测量、辅助决策、离散选择或其他偏好测量方法、患者满意度、生活质量、成本和假体的选择特征。数据提取从每项研究中提取特征,包括研究目的、作者、出版年份、国家、抽样策略、样本量、数据收集方法、分析、结果或调查类型、假体偏好或选择的方法或讨论、假体的模型或描述、结果、决策属性或因素。两个人使用2018年有效的关键评估技能计划定性研究清单评估研究质量。在1388项研究中,67项被纳入。我们的发现揭示了多种研究类型和目的,它们共同描述了复杂决策过程的重要因素。我们概念化了5个主要主题来创建我们的文献景观:(1)使用的结果/测量的充分性,(2)偏好研究的程度,(3)假体类型比较,(4)决策关键因素,(5)处方过程。个性化的决策方法被强调,但只有5个假肢偏好研究。我们确定了一个列表的主要因素或属性重要时,选择义肢用于偏好研究;功能,外观,握持特性,耐用性,重量和成本。我们提出了一个“用户复杂性”的结构来整合技术和用户选择的研究。据我们所知,这是第一个关注偏好测量的文献综述。尽管缺乏偏好研究,但通过处方过程将患者声音纳入假体选择的重要性已达成共识。我们的研究结果综合了大量文献,这些文献没有很好地组织或概括,不足以帮助个人和义肢医生做出义肢的决定。我们的见解可以指导共同决策,改善假肢处方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信