ArticleCanadian prosthetics & orthotics journal2024
Exploring Factors for Prescription and Validation of Actuated Upper Limb Devices: a Cross-sectional Survey of Allied Health Professionals.
Article in Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundActuated devices can be beneficial for individuals with upper limb muscle weakness, offering extra force and grip. Utilising this type of assistive device can facilitate daily activities, thereby enhancing independence and overall quality of life. The development of actuated assistive devices has been growing, and current literature shows promise in their clinical use. However, they are not yet medically recommended by global guidelines and councils. Studies have suggested why assistive devices have barriers to access, but actuated devices have not been a focus in these discussions.
objectivesTo address this issue, a survey was conducted among professionals who prescribe and assess upper limb assistive devices. The survey aimed to gather their opinions and quantify the factors that might contribute to the limited use of actuated devices in the field. METHODOLOGY: A web-based cross-sectional study was designed using Qualtrics, contained 25 items and was conducted between October 2023 and January 2024. The survey was piloted, validated, and ethically approved. Results were statistically analysed, and open questions underwent thematic analysis.
findings87 Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) contributed to the survey, with a completion rate of 69% (60/87). Survey respondents predominately worked from the USA (72%). The survey revealed that 66% of respondents felt they did not have sufficient access to assistive devices and 58% indicated that outcome measures could be improved. They also noted that actuated devices needed to better meet user-centric needs. Barriers to prescribing these devices included a lack of awareness, experience and standardised prescription methods. In addition, the limited time with patients made decision-making and validation of an actuated device difficult.
conclusionAHP's have experience prescribing assistive devices but do not have access, knowledge, or clinical methods to assess the use of actuated devices. Future designs for actuated devices should focus on wearability, comfort, user satisfaction, safety and ease of use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.