Factors Affecting the Use of Prosthetic Services

Nielsen, Caroline C.; Psonak, Richard A.; Kalter, Terry L.

doi:10.1097/00008526-198907000-00008

Cited by 22 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These phrases were written on the right hand side of the grid, opposite the original phrase created, creating a completed construct. In the final phase, participants were asked to rate each of the elements along each of the constructs in a stepwise fashion, using a 10-point rating scale (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Participants were told the phrase on the left of the grid stands for '1' end of the scale and the phrase on the right of the grid for '10'.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has also been recommended that when selecting a prosthesis for an individual, attention should be directed at the specific needs of the individual, 4 that prosthetic users are provided with a choice of available options, 3 and are involved in prosthesis selection. 5,6 While a number of factors including equipment, functional utility, and individual variables such as motivation have been associated with non-use, [7][8][9] there has been a growing recognition within the assistive technology literature of the importance of consumer preferences and values in understanding non-use. 3 For one individual a given prosthesis may represent a restoration of independence and embody ability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying the Values and Preferences of Prosthetic Users

Schaffalitzky¹,

NiMhurchadha²,

Gallagher³

et al. 2009

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The matching of prosthetic devices to the needs of the individual is a challenge for providers and patients. The aims of this study are to explore the values and preferences that prosthetic users have of their prosthetic devices; to investigate users' perceptions of alternative prosthetic options and to demonstrate a novel method for exploring the values and preferences of prosthetic users. Methods: This study describes four case studies of upper limb and lower limb high tech and conventional prosthetic users. Participants were interviewed using the repertory grid technique (RGT), a qualitative technique to explore individual values and preferences regarding specific choices and events. Results: The participants generated distinctive patterns of personal constructs and ratings regarding prosthetic use and different prosthetic options available. The RGT produced a unique profile of preferences regarding prosthetic technologies for each participant. Conclusions: User choice is an important factor when matching prosthetic technology to the user. The consumer's values regarding different prosthetic options are likely to be a critical factor in prosthetic acceptance and ultimate quality of life. The RGT offers a structured method of exploring these attitudes and values without imposing researcher or practitioner bias and identifies personalized dimensions for providers and users to evaluate the individuals' preferences in prosthetic technology.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the Values and Preferences of Prosthetic Users

Schaffalitzky¹,

NiMhurchadha²,

Gallagher³

et al. 2009

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The role of patient preference and/or satisfaction has long guided decisions in the provision of prosthetic care, but only recently has it begun to receive attention in the prosthetic literature [188]. Although populationbased surveys of overall use and satisfaction with prostheses (and/or prosthetic services) among individuals with LLL exist [181,[189][190][191][192], none of these describe how preference or satisfaction is influenced by specific prosthetic components.…”

Section: Preference and Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: A systematic review

Sawers¹,

Hafner²

2013

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees (MPKs) have been developed as an alternative to non-microprocessorcontrolled knees (NMPKs) to address challenges facing individuals with lower-limb loss. A body of scientific literature comparing MPKs and NMPKs exists but has yet to be critically appraised. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to examine outcomes associated with the use of these interventions among individuals with transfemoral limb loss. A search of biomedical databases identified 241 publications, of which 27 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were reviewed for methodological quality and content. We developed 28 empirical evidence statements (EESs) in 9 outcome categories (metabolic energy expenditure, activity, cognitive demand, gait mechanics, environmental obstacle negotiation, safety, preference and satisfaction, economics, and health and quality of life) based on findings in the literature. The level of evidence supporting these EESs varied due to quantity, quality, and consistency of the results. EESs supported by a moderate level of evidence that noted significant differences between MPKs and NMPKs were derived in five of the nine outcome categories. The results from this review suggest that evidence exists to inform clinical practice and that additional research is needed to confirm existing evidence and better understand outcomes associated with the use of NMPKs and MPKs.Key words: amputation, artificial limb, function, gait, knee, microprocessor, outcome, preference, rehabilitation, safety. Abbreviations: AAOP = American Academy of Orthotists andProsthetists, ABC = Activities-specific Balance Confidence, CWS = controlled walking speed, DLW = doubly labeled water, EBP = evidence-based practice, EES = empirical evidence statement, EV = external validity, GRF = ground reaction force, HAI = Hill Assessment Index, HRQL = health-related quality of life, IV = internal validity, LLL = lower-limb loss, MFCL = Medicare Functional Classification Level, MP = microprocessor, MPC = microprocessor control, MPK = microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee, MRPP = Montreal Rehabilitation Performance Profile, NMPK = non-microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee, O 2 = oxygen, O&P = orthotic and prosthetic, PAEE = physical activity-related energy expenditure, PCBS = Prosthetic Cognitive Burden Scale, PCI = physiological cost index, PEQ = Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, PEQ-A = PEQ Addendum, PRO = patient-reported outcome, QALY = quality adjusted life year, QOL = quality of life, RPE = rating of perceived exertion, SAI = Stair Assessment Index, SF-36 = 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, SOT = sensory organization test, SSWS = selfselected walking speed, SSC = State of the Science Conference, TDEE = total daily energy expenditure, TFLL = transfemoral limb loss.

show abstract

“…Although some recent exceptions can be found [7][8][9][10], most prior research in prosthesis use has focused almost exclusively on persons with LLA secondary to vascular dysfunction, representing predominantly elderly persons [6,[11][12][13][14]. Numerous alternative pathways to limb loss exist, including cancer, trauma, and infection, each of which may represent widely varying clinical circumstances and potentially different demographic characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthesis use in persons with lower- and upper-limb amputation

Raichle

Hanley

Molton

et al. 2008

JRRD

221

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This study identified clinical (e.g., etiology) and demographic factors related to prosthesis use in persons with upper-and lower-limb amputation (ULA and LLA, respectively) and the effect of phantom limb pain (PLP) and residual limb pain (RLP) on prosthesis use. A total of 752 respondents with LLA and 107 respondents with ULA completed surveys. Factors related to greater use (hours per day) for persons with LLA included younger age, full-or part-time employment, marriage, a distal amputation, an amputation of traumatic etiology, and an absence of PLP. Less use was associated with reports that prosthesis use worsened RLP, and greater prosthesis use was associated with reports that prosthesis use did not affect PLP. Having a proximal amputation and reporting lower average PLP were related to greater use in hours per day for persons with an ULA, while having a distal amputation and being married were associated with greater use in days per month. Finally, participants with LLA were significantly more likely to wear a prosthesis than those with ULA. These results underscore the importance of examining factors related to prosthesis use and the differential effect that these variables may have when the etiology and location of amputation are considered.

show abstract

Factors Affecting the Use of Prosthetic Services

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Identifying the Values and Preferences of Prosthetic Users

Identifying the Values and Preferences of Prosthetic Users

Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: A systematic review

Prosthesis use in persons with lower- and upper-limb amputation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About