ArticleAfrican journal of disability2025
An exploration of adherence to the World Health Organization's Prosthetic Standards in Namibia.
Article in African journal of disability, 2025. 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
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) published 'Standards for Prosthetics and Orthotics' to improve these services globally. Research that compares services to the standards assists in developing a baseline against which future development can be measured and identifies areas needing improvement. Objectives: This article aims to describe prosthetic services in Namibia and compare them to the 60 WHO standards. Method: A mixed-methods exploratory design was employed. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with purposively selected participants, including managers ( Results: The triangulated data showed adherence to 14 standards, partial adherence to 24 and non-adherence to 22 standards. As per the standards' requirements, the government directed the provision of prosthetic services, and a range of prosthetic products was provided free of charge at all levels of care. Funding challenges, no national prosthetics committee, and no databases as well as lacklustre support of providers' careers and professional development, indicated areas of non-adherence. Conclusion: A systems-based approach, utilising a people-centred conceptual framework, can aid Namibia and similar countries in implementing the standards. Contribution: This study is the first to provide information on implementing WHO prosthetic standards in an African setting.
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.