• Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Julien Dery, Marie-Eve Lamontagne, Afshin Jamshidi, Emilie Lacroix, Angel Ruiz, Daoud Ait-Kadi, and François Routhier.
• Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
• Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020 Jun 5: 1-8.

AbstractPurpose: A large number of people living with a chronic disability wait a long time to access publicly funded rehabilitation services such as Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) services, and there is no standardized tool to prioritize these patients. We aimed to develop a prioritization tool to improve the organization and access to the care for this population.Methods: In this sequential mixed methods study, we began with a qualitative phase in which we conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 stakeholders including patients, their caregivers, and AAC service providers in Quebec City, Canada to gather their ideas about prioritization criteria. Then, during a half-day consensus group meeting with stakeholders, using a consensus-seeking technique (i.e. Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts), we reached consensus on the most important prioritization criteria. These criteria informed the quantitative phase in which used an electronic questionnaire to collect stakeholders' views regarding the relative weights for each of the selected criteria. We analyzed these data using a hybrid quantitative method called group based fuzzy analytical hierarchy process, to obtain the importance weights of the selected eight criteria.Results: Analyses of the interviews revealed 48 criteria. Collectively, the stakeholders reached consensus on eight criteria, and through the electronic questionnaire they defined the selected criteria's importance weights. The selected eight prioritization criteria and their importance weights are: person's safety (weight: 0.274), risks development potential (weight: 0.144), psychological well-being (weight: 0.140), physical well-being (weight: 0.124), life prognosis (weight: 0.106), possible impact on social environment (weight: 0.085), interpersonal relationships (weight: 0.073), and responsibilities and social role (weight: 0.054).Conclusion: In this study, we co-developed a prioritization decision tool with the key stakeholders for prioritization of patients who are referred to AAC services in rehabilitation settings.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILIATIONStudies in Canada have shown that people in Canada with a need for rehabilitation services are not receiving publicly available services in a timely manner.There is no standardized tool for the prioritization of AAC patients.In this mixed methods study, we co-developed a prioritization tool with key stakeholders for prioritization of patients who are referred to AAC services in a rehabilitation center in Quebec, Canada.

4 keywords...

hide…