BACKGROUND: Prosthetic rehabilitation decisions depend on estimating a patients mobility potential. However, no validated prediction models of mobility outcomes exist for people with lower-limb amputation (LLA). OBJECTIVES: To develop and test predictions for self-reported mobility after LLA, using the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M). STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort analysis. METHODS: Eight hundred thirty-one patient records (1,860 PLUS-M observations) were used to develop and test a neighbors-based prediction model, using previous patient data to predict the 6-month PLUS-M T-score trajectory for a new patient (based on matching characteristics). The prediction model was developed in a training data set (n = 552 patients) and tested in an out-of-sample data set of 279 patients with later visit dates. Prediction performance was assessed using bias, coverage, and precision. Prediction calibration was also assessed. RESULTS: The average prediction bias for the model was 0.01 SDs, average coverage was 0.498 (ideal proportion within the 50% prediction interval = 0.5), and prediction interval was 8.4 PLUS-M T-score points (40% improvement over population-level estimates). Predictions were well calibrated, with the median predicted scores falling within the standard error of the median of observed scores, across all deciles of the data. CONCLUSIONS: This neighbors-based prediction approach allows for accurate estimates of PLUS-M T-score trajectories for people with LLA.

PURPOSE: Little has been published about the process of decision-making between prosthetists and people with lower limb amputation (LLA). The purpose of this study is to identify decisions and factors influencing decision-making in prosthetic rehabilitation from the perspectives of prosthetists and prosthesis users, to identify barriers and opportunities for shared decision-making (SDM). METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 13 prosthetists and 14 prosthesis users from three clinics in three states of the Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions of the United States. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: perceived decision points, importance of relationship, balancing competing priorities, and experience. Contrasts between perceptions of prosthetists and prosthesis users were related to prosthesis design decisions, and the purpose of communication (e.g., goals for a prosthesis vs. goals informing prosthesis design). Both prosthetists and prosthesis users described balancing priorities that contribute to prosthetic rehabilitation decisions, and the role of experience for informing realistic expectations and preferences necessary for participating in decision-making. CONCLUSION: Opportunities for improving SDM between prosthetists and prosthesis users include (1) clarifying key rehabilitation decisions, (2) identifying the purpose of initial communications, (3) support for balancing priorities, and (4) utilizing experience to achieve informed preferences.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMany people with lower limb amputation experience poor physical function and psychosocial outcomes, which may be further compounded by under informed prosthesis-user expectations for function with a prosthesis.Shared decision-making offers an opportunity for improving realistic prosthesis-user expectations, reducing healthcare costs, and improving prosthesis-user satisfaction and adherence to care plans.Opportunities for improving shared decision-making between prosthetists and prosthesis-users include (1) clarifying key rehabilitation decisions, (2) identifying the purpose of initial communications, (3) support for balancing priorities, and (4) utilizing experience to achieve informed preferences.