ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Assessing patient use and satisfaction with ankle foot orthoses and service: A cross-sectional study in a tertiary care hospital.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Study was done to examine the use, non-use, the quality of clinical advice, challenges in acquiring AFOs (Ankle Foot Orthosis), and user satisfaction, using a WHO based Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA) and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) questionnaire. The cohort (n = 100) consisted mainly of males (71%) and residents of city (82%). It was found that 98 subjects were under advice from healthcare providers to use an AFO but only 59 subjects were using AFO at present. Common complaints were pain, fitting related and social stigma among users. The majority of the subjects (87%) paid for their AFOs. It was found that the majority of the subjects were "more or less satisfied" with the device however 59% strongly agree that they dislike the appearance of their AFO and 37% were completely dissatisfied with the accessibility of their home and surroundings while using the AFO. It is evident that we should work on improving the design and fit of the orthosis so that the acceptance and satisfaction improves. This study also explores the possibility of usage of rATA for the specific assistive Technology (like AFO in this context) assessment. It was observed that patients often have high expectations regarding a cure with the use of an AFO. Therefore, it is essential for service providers to explain that the AFO is intended to improve function rather than provider a cure. This mismatch of understanding may contribute to dissatisfaction by patients using AFOs, hence user education is essential along with technology provision.
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.