This study is designed to learn more about decision making for prosthetic design, with the goal of producing a decision making aid for prosthetic design decisions.
The overarching hypothesis of this work is that the lack of shared decision making (SDM) for prosthetic design and failure to match patient expectations with a prosthetic design plan result in poor health outcomes for patients with LLA. Shared decision making (SDM) is where clinicians and patients share the best available evidence for comparing options in order to achieve informed preferences for making health decisions. A patient's involvement in their health care process is known to affect their satisfaction, adherence to care programs, and health outcomes. Clinical decision aids (DAs) support patients in SDM and making informed health decisions, by providing information on the available options and associated outcomes. DAs are intended to help patients clarify their values associated with the options and potential outcomes, to create a platform for communication with healthcare providers. DAs have been shown to improve patient knowledge and realistic expectations for given health options. This project aims to examine how to better align patient and clinician values and expectations by developing a DA for prosthetic design decision options, to support SDM between patients receiving their first prosthesis and prosthetic care providers. This proposal will be guided by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). Aim 1: Qualitatively define the key determinants and decisional needs of new prosthetic patients (n=14) and prosthetic care providers (n=20- 24) during prosthetic design, via semi structured interviews with patient participants and focus groups with prosthetist participants. Expected Result 1.1: Key determinants and decisional needs for prosthetic design will be defined using content analysis guided by the Ottawa Decision Support framework9 for patients making health decisions, and the Model for Shared Decision Making in Clinical Practice. Expected Result 1.2: Key stakeholders who contribute directly to prosthetic design decisions (e.g., patients with LLA, prosthetists, physicians, caregivers, close friends or family members) will be identified via purposive sampling, to inform the target end users of a DA prototype. Aim 2: Synthesize the evidence for prosthetic design decision options to develop a DA prototype. Expected Result 2.1: Via systematic literature review, a DA prototype will be developed from the evidence on prosthetic design decision options associated with decisional needs identified in Aim 1. Aim 3: Assess the DA prototype's accuracy, comprehensibility, and usability through alpha testing with an expert working group of patients with LLA and prosthetic care providers. Expected Result 3.1: Quantitative results from a Likert scale measurement of the DA prototype's accuracy, comprehensibility and usability will inform revisions to the DA prior to use in a pilot clinical trial. Expected Result 3.2: Qualitative feedback on the DA prototype's accuracy, comprehensibility, and usability will inform directed iterative revision for the DA prototype and implementation methods for use in a pilot clinical trial.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
66
Prosthetists and/or expert working group members will participate in qualitative focus group interviews up to 120 minutes in length.
People with lower limb amputation and/or expert working group members will participate in qualitative individual, semi-structured interviews approximately 60 minutes in length.
University of Colorado
Aurora, Colorado, United States
Number of Participants Who Participated in and Completed 1 Hour Qualitative Interview Data Collection Via a Semi Structured Interview Guides
During 1 hour semi structured interviews with participants, questions about the decisional needs of patients and prosthetists for Prosthetic Design Decisions were asked. Because qualitative data is not numerical, the transcripts of each interview were analyzed using directed content analysis using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, and the Elwyn Shared Decision Making Model, and resulting final qualitative themes were used to guide the content in the development of a decision aid for prosthetic design. Qualitative data is not numerical, and only the number of participants who complete the semi structured interviews was able to be numerically recorded and analyzed.
Time frame: Data collection of the semi structured qualitative interview occurred at the baseline time point only, lasting an average of 1 hour during 1 day.
Accuracy of the Decision Aid Prototype, as Measured in Percentage.
The Accuracy of the Decision Aid is a single item Likert scale measure of the degree to which the decision aid's revised content, advantages, and disadvantages in the decision aid aligns with the scientific evidence available on the prosthesis design decision outcomes. This scale includes 1 question, with a range of response scoring from 1 to 5. 1 represents low accuracy of the decision aid, while 5 represents high accuracy of the decision aid. The final score is converted to a percentage for all respondents (ranging 0% to 100%, with a higher percentage representing greater accuracy).
Time frame: Data collection occurred at the baseline time point only, lasting an average of 1 hour during 1 day.
Comprehensibility of the Decision Aid Prototype, as Measured by a Likert Scale
The Comprehensibility of the Decision Aid is a single item Likert scale measure of the degree to which the information in the Decision Aid was understandable and covers information necessary for making an informed decision about prosthesis design. This scale includes 1 question, with a range of response scoring from 1 to 5. 1 represents low comprehensibility of the decision aid, while 5 represents high comprehensibility of the decision aid. The final score is calculated as a percentage (ranging 0% to 100%, with a higher percentage representing greater comprehensibility) for all participants.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: Data collection occurred at the baseline time point only, lasting an average of 1 hour during 1 day.
Usability of the Decision Decision Aid Prototype, as Measured by a Likert Scale
The Usability of the Decision Aid is a single item Likert scale measure of the degree to which the Decision Aid prototype was acceptable, clear, understandable, and effective in use. This scale includes 1 question, with a range of response scoring from 1 to 5. 1 represents low usability of the decision aid, while 5 represents high usability of the decision aid. The final score is calculated as a percentage for all respondents (ranging 0% to 100%, with a higher percentage representing greater usability).
Time frame: Data collection occurred at the baseline time point only, lasting an average of 1 hour during 1 day.
Participant Preferences for Personal Preference Towards Control in a Health Decision, as Measured by the Control Preferences Scale Survey
The control preference scale is a measure of the degree of control an individual wants to assume when decisions are being made about medical treatment. This scale was adapted to this study, to include 5 questions with a range of response scores from 1 to 5 for each question (totaling a final score ranging from 5 to 25). 1 the degree of control an individual wants to assume when decisions are being made about medical treatment represents a more passive provider controlled preference for making a decision, while 5 represents a more active patient controlled preference for making a decision.
Time frame: Data collection occurred at the baseline time point only, lasting an average of 1 hour during 1 day.
Perceived Ability to Find and Use Health Information, Via the eHealth Literacy Scale Survey
The eHealth Literacy scale survey is a 10-item measure of electronic Health literacy developed to measure patient's combined knowledge, comfort, and perceived skills at finding, evaluating, and applying electronic health information to health problems. This scale includes 10 questions with a range of response scores from 1 to 5 for each question (totaling a final score ranging from 10 to 50). 1 represents low electronic health literacy, while 5 represents higher electronic health literacy.
Time frame: Data collection occurred at the baseline time point only, lasting an average of 1 hour during 1 day.