Comparing the outcomes of a prosthetic intervention from the perspective of Australian prosthesis users and funders

Little is known about the perspectives of prosthesis users and funders regarding the outcomes that are most important when receiving/funding a lower-limb prosthetic intervention. In this cross-sectional study, 99 prosthesis users and nine funders rated the importance of 121 International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework (ICF) second-level categories. Of the 121 ICF second-level categories: seven were important to both prosthesis users and funders, 23 were important to either prosthesis user or funders, and 91 were not important to both prosthesis users and funders. Of the second-level categories important to both prosthesis users and funders, 57% came from the <i>Mobility (d4)</i> chapter. Prosthesis users and funders had different perspectives about the <i>Major life areas (d8)</i> chapter; in particular, second-level categories relating to education and employment. While prosthesis users and funders shared very similar perspectives about what was most important when receiving/funding a prosthetic intervention, there are opportunities to reconcile perspectives where they differ. Understanding the different perspectives will require further research given the myriad of potential explanations. Prosthesis users and funders shared very similar perspectives about what was most important when receiving/funding a prosthetic intervention.Practitioners should engage prosthesis users in meaningful conversations to determine what is most important to them when receiving a prosthetic intervention.In applications for funding, practitioners can convey what is most important to a prosthesis users to help ensure funders have a shared understanding.The Prosthetic Interventions Core Outcome Set (PI-COS) provides a helpful starting point for the selection of outcomes given the high degree of agreement between prosthesis users and funders about what is most important when receiving/funding a prosthetic intervention. Prosthesis users and funders shared very similar perspectives about what was most important when receiving/funding a prosthetic intervention. Practitioners should engage prosthesis users in meaningful conversations to determine what is most important to them when receiving a prosthetic intervention. In applications for funding, practitioners can convey what is most important to a prosthesis users to help ensure funders have a shared understanding. The Prosthetic Interventions Core Outcome Set (PI-COS) provides a helpful starting point for the selection of outcomes given the high degree of agreement between prosthesis users and funders about what is most important when receiving/funding a prosthetic intervention.