Ethical and Psychosocial Factors in the Decision-Making and Informed Consent Process for Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Although upper extremity (UE) vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) aims to improve quality of life, relatively few have been performed worldwide to support evidence-based treatment and informed decision-making. Methods: We qualitatively examined factors contributing to anticipated and actual decision-making about UE VCA and perceptions of the elements of informed consent among people with UE amputations, and UE VCA candidates, participants, and recipients through in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Results: Fifty individuals participated; most were male (78%) and had a mean age of 45 y and a unilateral amputation (84%). One-third (35%) were "a lot" or "completely" willing to pursue UE VCA. UE VCA decision-making themes included the utility of UE VCA, psychosocial impact of UE VCA and amputation on individuals' lives, altruism, and anticipated burden of UE VCA on lifestyle. Most respondents who underwent UE VCA evaluation (n = 8/10) perceived having no reasonable treatment alternatives. Generally, respondents (n = 50) recognized the potential for familial, societal, cultural, medical, and self-driven pressures to pursue UE VCA among individuals with amputations. Some (n = 9/50, 18%) reported personally feeling "a little," "somewhat," "a lot," or "completely" pressured to pursue UE VCA. Respondents recommended that individuals be informed about the option of UE VCA near the amputation date. Conclusions: Our study identified psychosocial and other factors affecting decision-making about UE VCA, which should be addressed to enhance informed consent. Study participants' perceptions and preferences about UE VCA suggest re-examination of assumptions guiding the UE VCA clinical evaluation process.

Patient definitions of transplant success in upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation: A mixed-methods study.

Objective: Upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation is an innovative treatment option for people with upper extremity amputations. Limited patient-relevant long-term outcomes data about transplant success may impede patients' informed treatment decision-making. We assessed perceptions of what constitutes upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation success among individuals with upper extremity amputations. Methods: This multisite study entailed interviews and focus groups with individuals with upper extremity amputations and upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation candidates, participants, and recipients. We examined perceptions of transplant success and preferences for five upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation outcomes. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis; and quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: In all, 50 individuals participated in interviews (61.7% participation rate), and 37 participated in nine focus groups (75.5% participation rate). Most were White (72%, 73%), had a mean age of 45 and 48 years, and had a unilateral amputation (84%, 59%), respectively. Participants conceptualized upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation success as transplant outcomes: (1) restoring function and sensation to enable new activities; (2) accepting the transplanted limb into one's identity and appearance; (3) not having transplant rejection; (4) attaining greater quality of life compared to prosthetics; and (5) ensuring benefits outweigh risks. Participants rated their most important upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation outcomes as follows: not having transplant rejection, not developing health complications, grasping objects, feeling touch and temperature, and accepting the upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation into your identity. Conclusion: Individuals with upper extremity amputations maintain several conceptions of vascularized composite allotransplantation success, spanning functional, psychosocial, clinical, and quality of life outcomes. Providers should address patients' conceptions of success to improve informed consent discussions and outcomes reporting for upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation.

A Patient-Centered Website (Within Reach) to Foster Informed Decision-making About Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: Development and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Upper extremity (UE) vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA; hand transplantation) is a reconstructive treatment option for patients with UE loss. Approximately 37 UE VCAs have been performed in the United States to date; thus, little is known about long-term psychosocial outcomes and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. To make an informed treatment decision, patients must understand the procedure, risks, and potential benefits of UE VCA. However, few educational resources are publicly available providing unbiased, comprehensive information about UE VCA. OBJECTIVE: This paper described the development of a neutral, and accessible, educational website supporting informed decision-making about UE VCA as a treatment option for individuals with UE amputations. METHODS: Website content development was informed by 9 focus groups conducted with individuals with UE amputations at 3 study sites. After initial website development, we conducted usability testing to identify ways to improve navigability, design, content, comprehension, and cultural sensitivity. Participants were administered the After-Scenario Questionnaire to assess user performance after completing navigational tasks, System Usability Scale to measure the perceived usability of the website, and Net Promoter Score to measure user satisfaction. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using rapid thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 44 individuals with UE amputations participated in focus groups (n=37, 84%) and usability testing (n=14, 32%). Most participants in the focus groups and usability testing were male (24/37, 65% and 11/14, 79%, respectively) and White (27/37, 73% and 9/14, 64%, respectively), had unilateral limb loss (22/37, 59% and 12/14, 86%, respectively), and had mean ages of 48 (SD 9.2) and 50 (SD 12.0) years, respectively. Focus group results are organized into accessibility, website design, website development, website tone and values, sitemap, terminology, images and videos, and tables and graphics. Usability testing revealed that participants had a positive impression of the website. The mean After-Scenario Questionnaire score of 1.3 to 2.3 across task scenarios indicated high satisfaction with website usability, the mean System Usability Scale score of 88.9 indicated user satisfaction with website usability, and the mean Net Promoter Score of 9.6 indicated that users were enthusiastic and would likely refer individuals to the website. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that our educational website, Within Reach, provides neutral, patient-centered information and may be a useful resource about UE VCA for individuals with UE amputations, their families, and health care professionals. Health care professionals may inform UE VCA candidates about Within Reach to supplement current VCA education processes. Within Reach serves as a resource about treatment options for patients preparing for scheduled or recovering from traumatic UE amputations. Future research should assess whether Within Reach improves knowledge about UE VCA and enhances informed decision-making about UE VCA as a treatment option.

Effectiveness of an Intervention to Improve Decision Making for Older Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) face difficult decisions about managing kidney failure, frequently experiencing decisional conflict, regret, and treatment misaligned with preferences. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a decision aid about kidney replacement therapy improved decisional quality compared with usual care. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03522740). SETTING: 8 outpatient nephrology clinics associated with 4 U.S. centers. PARTICIPANTS: English-fluent patients, 70 years and older with nondialysis CKD stages 4 to 5 recruited from 2018 to 2020. INTERVENTION: DART (Decision-Aid for Renal Therapy) is an interactive, web-based decision aid for older adults with CKD. Both groups received written education about treatments. MEASUREMENTS: Change in the decisional conflict scale (DCS) score from baseline to 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in prognostic and treatment knowledge and change in uncertainty. RESULTS: Among 400 participants, 363 were randomly assigned: 180 to usual care, 183 to DART. Decisional quality improved with DART with mean DCS declining compared with control (mean difference, -8.5 [95% CI, -12.0 to -5.0]; P < 0.001), with similar findings at 6 months, attenuating thereafter. At 3 months, knowledge improved with DART versus usual care (mean difference, 7.2 [CI, 3.7 to 10.7]; P < 0.001); similar findings at 6 months were modestly attenuated at 18 months (mean difference, 5.9 [CI, 1.4 to 10.3]; P = 0.010). Treatment preferences changed from 58% "unsure" at baseline to 28%, 20%, 23%, and 14% at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively, with DART, versus 51% to 38%, 35%, 32%, and 18% with usual care. LIMITATION: Latinx patients were underrepresented. CONCLUSION: DART improved decision quality and clarified treatment preferences among older adults with advanced CKD for 6 months after the DART intervention. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

Information needs and development of a question prompt sheet for upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation: A mixed methods study.

Background: People with upper extremity (UE) amputations report receiving insufficient information about treatment options. Furthermore, patients commonly report not knowing what questions to ask providers. A question prompt sheet (QPS), or list of questions, can support patient-centered care by empowering patients to ask questions important to them, promoting patient-provider communication, and increasing patient knowledge. This study assessed information needs among people with UE amputations about UE vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) and developed a UE VCA-QPS. Methods: This multi-site, cross-sectional, mixed-methods study involved in-depth and semi-structured interviews with people with UE amputations to assess information needs and develop a UE VCA-QPS. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic analysis; quantitative data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. The initial UE VCA-QPS included 130 items across 18 topics. Results: Eighty-nine people with UE amputations participated. Most were male (73%), had a mean age of 46 years, and had a unilateral (84%) and below-elbow amputation (56%). Participants desired information about UE VCA eligibility, evaluation process, surgery, risks, rehabilitation, and functional outcomes. After refinement, the final UE VCA-QPS included 35 items, across 9 topics. All items were written at a ≤ 6th grade reading level. Most semi-structured interview participants (86%) reported being 'completely' or 'very' likely to use a UE VCA-QPS. Conclusion: People with UE amputations have extensive information needs about UE VCA. The UE VCA-QPS aims to address patients' information needs and foster patient-centered care. Future research should assess whether the UE VCA-QPS facilitates patient-provider discussion and informed decision-making for UE VCA.