多标准决策分析(MCDA)的开发和试点研究,以比较患者和提供者在截肢水平结果方面的优先级。

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Diana Poehler, Joseph Czerniecki, Daniel Norvell, Alison Henderson, James Dolan, Beth Devine
{"title":"多标准决策分析(MCDA)的开发和试点研究,以比较患者和提供者在截肢水平结果方面的优先级。","authors":"Diana Poehler,&nbsp;Joseph Czerniecki,&nbsp;Daniel Norvell,&nbsp;Alison Henderson,&nbsp;James Dolan,&nbsp;Beth Devine","doi":"10.1177/23814683221143765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> 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. <b>Purpose.</b> 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. <b>Methods.</b> 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. <b>Results.</b> 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. <b>Limitations.</b> The pilot test study enrolled a small sample of providers and patients. <b>Conclusions.</b> We successfully implemented the pilot study to patients and providers, received helpful feedback, and identified solutions to improve the tool. <b>Implications.</b> Once modified, our MCDA tool will be suitable for wider rollout.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"7 2","pages":"23814683221143765"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/da/c4/10.1177_23814683221143765.PMC9761219.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Development and Pilot Study of a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Compare Patient and Provider Priorities around Amputation-Level Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Diana Poehler,&nbsp;Joseph Czerniecki,&nbsp;Daniel Norvell,&nbsp;Alison Henderson,&nbsp;James Dolan,&nbsp;Beth Devine\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23814683221143765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background.</b> 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. <b>Purpose.</b> 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. <b>Methods.</b> 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. <b>Results.</b> 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. <b>Limitations.</b> The pilot test study enrolled a small sample of providers and patients. <b>Conclusions.</b> We successfully implemented the pilot study to patients and providers, received helpful feedback, and identified solutions to improve the tool. <b>Implications.</b> Once modified, our MCDA tool will be suitable for wider rollout.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"23814683221143765\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/da/c4/10.1177_23814683221143765.PMC9761219.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221143765\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221143765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景。慢性肢体缺血患者面临下肢截肢时,通常需要经跖骨截肢(TMA)或经胫骨截肢(TTA)。TMA保留了更多患者的肢体,可能提供更好的活动能力,但相对于TTA,其原发伤口愈合的可能性较低,并可能导致额外的截肢手术。了解患者和医生如何优先考虑关键结果的差异可能会提高截肢手术的决策过程。目的。开发和试点测试一种多标准决策分析(MCDA)工具,以获取患者对截肢水平选择的价值,并将其与提供者对患者价值的看法进行比较。方法。我们进行了文献综述,以确定和衡量对患者重要的标准的表现。由于定量文献很少,我们开发了谢菲尔德启发框架练习,以引出主题专家的标准表现。我们在患者和医疗服务提供者中试行了MCDA,以了解工具的可接受性,并初步评估患者和医疗服务提供者优先级的差异。结果。确定了五个重要标准:行走能力、截肢术后愈合、康复强度、肢体长度和假肢/矫形器的易用性。患者和提供者成功地完成了MCDA,并确定了这样做的挑战。我们提出了应对这些挑战的潜在解决方案。试点测试的结果表明,在病人和提供者的优先结果的差异。的局限性。试点试验研究招募了一小部分提供者和患者。结论。我们成功地对患者和医疗服务提供者实施了试点研究,收到了有益的反馈,并确定了改进工具的解决方案。的影响。一旦修改,我们的MCDA工具将适用于更广泛的推广。重点:患者和提供者已经成功地完成了我们的MCDA,患者认为MCDA可能在临床实践中有用。我们遇到了一些方法上的挑战,并确定了减轻参与者负担的方法。当数据稀疏时,使用Sheffield启发框架有助于创建绩效矩阵,尽管患者在很大程度上依赖于他们的截肢经验来完成练习。对替代方案进行盲化可能有助于患者更好地理解这一过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信