Abstract
This study supported the evaluation by a rehabilitation team of the performance of two treatment options that improve the arm-hand function in subjects with sixth cervical vertebra (C6) level Motor Group 2 tetraplegia. The analytic hierarchy process, a technique for multicriteria decision analysis, was used by a rehabilitation team and potential recipients to quantitatively compare a new technology, Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES), with conventional surgery. Perform-ance was measured by functional improvement, treatment load, risks, user-friendliness, and social outcomes. Functional improvement after FES was considered better than that after conventional surgery. However, the rehabilitation team's overall rating for conventional surgery was slightly higher than that for FES (57% vs 44%). Compared with the rehabilitation team, potential recipients gave greater weight to burden of treatment and less weight to functional improvement. This study shows that evaluation of new technology must be more comprehensive than the evaluation of functional improvement alone, and that patient preferences may differ from those of the rehabilitation team.
| Original language | Undefined |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 635-644 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Journal of rehabilitation research and development |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Publication status | Published - 2005 |
Keywords
- rehabilitation team
- reconstructive surgery
- shared decision making
- group decision support
- hand function therapy
- Tetraplegia
- Performance
- METIS-230909
- Decision analysis
- Functional Electrical Stimulation
- Analytic Hierarchy Process
- IR-71400