为下肢假肢新使用者开发和测试假肢设计患者共享决策辅助工具。

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Prosthetics and Orthotics International Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1097/PXR.0000000000000314
Chelsey B Anderson, Stefania Fatone, Mark M Mañago, Laura A Swink, Andrew J Kittelson, Dawn M Magnusson, Cory L Christiansen
{"title":"为下肢假肢新使用者开发和测试假肢设计患者共享决策辅助工具。","authors":"Chelsey B Anderson, Stefania Fatone, Mark M Mañago, Laura A Swink, Andrew J Kittelson, Dawn M Magnusson, Cory L Christiansen","doi":"10.1097/PXR.0000000000000314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>After lower limb amputation, several prosthesis design options exist. However, prosthesis design decisions do not always reflect a prosthesis user's needs, values, and preferences.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a patient decision aid (PDA) prototype for prosthetists and new prosthesis users facing prosthesis design decisions after lower limb amputation, and to assess its usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Exploratory mixed methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PDA development was informed by a qualitative needs assessment and guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The PDA was evaluated by steering groups of experienced prosthesis users and prosthetic professionals (prosthetists and researchers) to test usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility through focus groups, individual interviews, and rating on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The resulting PDA included 6 sections: (1) Amputation and Early Recovery, (2) Communication, (3) Values, (4) Prosthesis Design, (5) Preferences, and (6) Prosthetic Journey. Usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility were rated as 9.2, 9.6, and 9.6, respectively, by prosthetic professionals, and 9.4, 9.6, and 9.6, respectively, by prosthesis users.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The PDA incorporated guidance by relevant stakeholders and was rated favorably, emphasizing a need for shared decision-making support in prosthesis design. One challenge was determining the amount of information in the PDA, highlighting the diversity in end users' informational needs. Future iterations of the PDA should undergo beta testing in clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A standardized, iterative method was used to develop a PDA for new lower limb prosthesis users and prosthetists when considering prosthesis design decisions. The PDA was considered useable, accurate, and comprehensible.</p>","PeriodicalId":49657,"journal":{"name":"Prosthetics and Orthotics International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411013/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and alpha testing of a patient shared decision aid for prosthesis design for new lower limb prosthesis users.\",\"authors\":\"Chelsey B Anderson, Stefania Fatone, Mark M Mañago, Laura A Swink, Andrew J Kittelson, Dawn M Magnusson, Cory L Christiansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PXR.0000000000000314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>After lower limb amputation, several prosthesis design options exist. However, prosthesis design decisions do not always reflect a prosthesis user's needs, values, and preferences.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a patient decision aid (PDA) prototype for prosthetists and new prosthesis users facing prosthesis design decisions after lower limb amputation, and to assess its usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Exploratory mixed methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PDA development was informed by a qualitative needs assessment and guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The PDA was evaluated by steering groups of experienced prosthesis users and prosthetic professionals (prosthetists and researchers) to test usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility through focus groups, individual interviews, and rating on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The resulting PDA included 6 sections: (1) Amputation and Early Recovery, (2) Communication, (3) Values, (4) Prosthesis Design, (5) Preferences, and (6) Prosthetic Journey. Usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility were rated as 9.2, 9.6, and 9.6, respectively, by prosthetic professionals, and 9.4, 9.6, and 9.6, respectively, by prosthesis users.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The PDA incorporated guidance by relevant stakeholders and was rated favorably, emphasizing a need for shared decision-making support in prosthesis design. One challenge was determining the amount of information in the PDA, highlighting the diversity in end users' informational needs. Future iterations of the PDA should undergo beta testing in clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A standardized, iterative method was used to develop a PDA for new lower limb prosthesis users and prosthetists when considering prosthesis design decisions. The PDA was considered useable, accurate, and comprehensible.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prosthetics and Orthotics International\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411013/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prosthetics and Orthotics International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000314\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prosthetics and Orthotics International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000314","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:下肢截肢后,有多种假肢设计方案可供选择。然而,假肢设计决策并不总是反映假肢使用者的需求、价值观和偏好:为假肢修复师和下肢截肢后面临假肢设计决策的新假肢使用者开发一种患者决策辅助工具(PDA)原型,并评估其可用性、准确性和可理解性:研究设计:探索性混合方法:研究设计:探索性混合方法。方法:根据定性需求评估结果,并在国际患者决策辅助标准的指导下开发患者决策辅助系统。由经验丰富的假肢使用者和假肢专业人员(假肢修复师和研究人员)组成的指导小组对 PDA 进行了评估,通过焦点小组、个别访谈和 1-10 分的李克特量表评分来测试其可用性、准确性和可理解性:最终的 PDA 包括 6 个部分:(1) 截肢和早期康复;(2) 沟通;(3) 价值观;(4) 义肢设计;(5) 偏好;(6) 义肢之旅。假肢专业人员对可用性、准确性和可理解性的评分分别为 9.2 分、9.6 分和 9.6 分,假肢使用者对可用性、准确性和可理解性的评分分别为 9.4 分、9.6 分和 9.6 分:讨论:PDA纳入了相关利益方的指导意见,并获得好评,强调了在假肢设计中共同决策支持的必要性。一个挑战是确定 PDA 的信息量,这凸显了最终用户对信息需求的多样性。PDA的未来迭代应该在临床环境中进行测试:在考虑假肢设计决策时,我们采用了标准化的迭代方法为下肢假肢新使用者和假肢修复师开发了掌上电脑。PDA 被认为是可用的、准确的和可理解的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Development and alpha testing of a patient shared decision aid for prosthesis design for new lower limb prosthesis users.

Background: After lower limb amputation, several prosthesis design options exist. However, prosthesis design decisions do not always reflect a prosthesis user's needs, values, and preferences.

Objective: To develop a patient decision aid (PDA) prototype for prosthetists and new prosthesis users facing prosthesis design decisions after lower limb amputation, and to assess its usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility.

Study design: Exploratory mixed methods.

Methods: PDA development was informed by a qualitative needs assessment and guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The PDA was evaluated by steering groups of experienced prosthesis users and prosthetic professionals (prosthetists and researchers) to test usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility through focus groups, individual interviews, and rating on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10.

Results: The resulting PDA included 6 sections: (1) Amputation and Early Recovery, (2) Communication, (3) Values, (4) Prosthesis Design, (5) Preferences, and (6) Prosthetic Journey. Usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility were rated as 9.2, 9.6, and 9.6, respectively, by prosthetic professionals, and 9.4, 9.6, and 9.6, respectively, by prosthesis users.

Discussion: The PDA incorporated guidance by relevant stakeholders and was rated favorably, emphasizing a need for shared decision-making support in prosthesis design. One challenge was determining the amount of information in the PDA, highlighting the diversity in end users' informational needs. Future iterations of the PDA should undergo beta testing in clinical settings.

Conclusions: A standardized, iterative method was used to develop a PDA for new lower limb prosthesis users and prosthetists when considering prosthesis design decisions. The PDA was considered useable, accurate, and comprehensible.

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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
13.30%
发文量
208
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Prosthetics and Orthotics International is an international, multidisciplinary journal for all professionals who have an interest in the medical, clinical, rehabilitation, technical, educational and research aspects of prosthetics, orthotics and rehabilitation engineering, as well as their related topics.
期刊最新文献
An environmental scan of limb loss rehabilitation centers across Canada. Design of a custom metamaterial insert for improved pressure distribution within transtibial prosthetic sockets. Effects of a low-cost prosthetic knee on amputee gait over uneven and even terrains. Time to successful outcome vs. treatment duration in cranial remolding orthosis treatment. Is biomechanical loading reduced in individuals with unilateral transtibial amputation during fast-paced walking when using different ankle/foot prostheses? A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1