RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Comparing patient and provider priorities around amputation level outcomes using multiple criteria decision analysis
Poehler, D., Czerniecki, J., Norvell, D., Henderson, A., Dolan, J., & Devine, B. (2023). Comparing patient and provider priorities around amputation level outcomes using multiple criteria decision analysis. Annals of Vascular Surgery. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2023.05.026
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia may require a transmetatarsal or a transtibial amputation (TMA or TTA). When making an amputation-level decision, these patients face a tradeoff - a TMA preserves more limb and may provide better mobility, but has a lower probability of primary wound healing and may therefore result in additional same or higher level amputation surgeries with an associated negative impact on function. Understanding differences in how patients and providers prioritize these tradeoffs and other outcomes may enhance shared-decision making.
OBJECTIVES: Compare patient priorities with provider perceptions of patient priorities using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).
METHODS: The MCDA Analytic Hierarchy Process was chosen due to its low cognitive burden and ease of implementation. We included five criteria (outcomes): ability to walk, healing after amputation surgery, rehabilitation program intensity, limb length, ease of use of prosthetic/orthotic device. A national sample of dysvascular lower-limb amputees and providers were recruited from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with the MCDA administered online to providers and telephonically to patients.
RESULTS: Twenty-six dysvascular amputees and 38 providers participated. Fifty percent of patients had undergone a TMA; 50%, a TTA. When compared to providers, patients placed placed higher value on TMA (72% vs 63%). Patient vs provider priorities were ability to walk (47% vs 42%), healing (18% vs 28%), ease of prosthesis use (17% vs 13%), limb length (11% vs 13%), then rehabilitation intensity (7% vs 6%).
LIMITATIONS: Our sample may not generalize to other populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Provider perceptions aligned with patient values on amputation-level but varied around the importance of each outcome.
IMPLICATIONS: These findings illuminate some differences between patients´ values and provider perceptions of patient values, suggesting a role for shared decision-making. Embedding this MCDA framework into a future decision aid may facilitate these discussions.