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

• Published in: MDM policy & practice Vol. 7; no. 2; p. 23814683221143765
• Main Authors: Poehler, Diana, Czerniecki, Joseph, Norvell, Daniel, Henderson, Alison, Dolan, James, Devine, Beth
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.07.2022; Sage Publications Ltd; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Amputation; Clinical decision making; Clinical outcomes; Ischemia; Original; Patients; shared decision making; lower extremity amputation; providers priorities; patients priorities; multi-criteria decision analysis
• ISSN: 2381-4683; 2381-4683
• DOI: 10.1177/23814683221143765

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.