Alison W Henderson, Maryam Soltani, Bjoern D Suckow, Alison R Kern, Daniel D Matlock, Joseph M Czerniecki, Daniel C Norvell
{"title":"AMPDECIDE amputation level patient decision aids: a feasibility study.","authors":"Alison W Henderson, Maryam Soltani, Bjoern D Suckow, Alison R Kern, Daniel D Matlock, Joseph M Czerniecki, Daniel C Norvell","doi":"10.1186/s12911-025-03084-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This was a feasibility study of the AMPDECIDE amputation level selection patient decision aids (one transmetatarsal vs. transtibial, the other transtibial vs. transfemoral) designed to inform a larger efficacy trial. We intended to gather data about usability of the aids, gather efficacy data about an amputation-level specific knowledge scale, identify any patient-barriers to the use of the decision aids, and evaluate the feasibility of our study methods.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Feasibility study with an uncontrolled before-after design in two medical centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convenience sample of dysvascular patients (both pre- and post-amputation) seen by either the vascular or orthopaedic surgery services at each facility were recruited. Enrolled patients completed baseline measures (including amputation level knowledge items). They then reviewed the decision aid with a research coordinator, followed by additional measures of control preference, numeracy, literacy and open-ended questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven patients were enrolled (9-post amputation, 2 pre-amputation). Patients rated the decision aids as easy to navigate. Nearly all patients expressed a desire to see their personalized mobility and reamputation risks should they be made available. Patients demonstrated 17% improved amputation level knowledge after exposure to the decision aids. In addition, 81% of patients indicated wanting to participate in the amputation level decision. The study encountered difficulties identifying and recruiting patients until greater clinician involvement was included.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AMPDECIDE patient decision aids and the study measures appear well suited for a larger efficacy trial. Patients were able to digest the information supplied in the aids and responded well to them. The initial recruitment strategy was insufficient; greater clinician involvement may help in the future.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":9340,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making","volume":"25 1","pages":"218"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210496/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-025-03084-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This was a feasibility study of the AMPDECIDE amputation level selection patient decision aids (one transmetatarsal vs. transtibial, the other transtibial vs. transfemoral) designed to inform a larger efficacy trial. We intended to gather data about usability of the aids, gather efficacy data about an amputation-level specific knowledge scale, identify any patient-barriers to the use of the decision aids, and evaluate the feasibility of our study methods.
Design: Feasibility study with an uncontrolled before-after design in two medical centers.
Methods: A convenience sample of dysvascular patients (both pre- and post-amputation) seen by either the vascular or orthopaedic surgery services at each facility were recruited. Enrolled patients completed baseline measures (including amputation level knowledge items). They then reviewed the decision aid with a research coordinator, followed by additional measures of control preference, numeracy, literacy and open-ended questions.
Results: Eleven patients were enrolled (9-post amputation, 2 pre-amputation). Patients rated the decision aids as easy to navigate. Nearly all patients expressed a desire to see their personalized mobility and reamputation risks should they be made available. Patients demonstrated 17% improved amputation level knowledge after exposure to the decision aids. In addition, 81% of patients indicated wanting to participate in the amputation level decision. The study encountered difficulties identifying and recruiting patients until greater clinician involvement was included.
Conclusions: The AMPDECIDE patient decision aids and the study measures appear well suited for a larger efficacy trial. Patients were able to digest the information supplied in the aids and responded well to them. The initial recruitment strategy was insufficient; greater clinician involvement may help in the future.
期刊介绍：
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the design, development, implementation, use, and evaluation of health information technologies and decision-making for human health.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
