Non‐motor difficulties in children with idiopathic clubfoot: can this impact brace adherence?

Abstract

This commentary is on the original article by Lööf et al. on pages https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13996 of this issue.

Barriers and facilitators to lower extremity orthotic compliance in the pediatric population: A scoping review of the literature

“…• Locally produced orthotics were manufactured at a lower cost 21 • Cost covered by source other than user 24,32,64 • Donation of outgrown shoes 29,50 • Nearby healthcare facility 24 • Involvement of children in the orthotic making process 27,49 • Good parental education about the importance of compliance 21,28,33,50,61,75,81 Products and Technology (e 1151) • Orthotic design • Heavy/not flexible 46,55 • Improper fit (i.e. : loose, feet slipped out of the orthotic) 20,23,26,30,46,48,53,71,76 • Aesthetics 36,55,82 • Device cracking 24,37 • Sensor to measure compliance 79 • Orthotics were reported to be inconvenient 26,82,89 • Do not fit in the car seat 67 • Difficulty bathing the child 67 • Difficulty holding the child 44 • Difficulty donning and doffing 15,19,41,42,46,48,55,<...…”

“…written guidelines, pamphlets, and videos). 66,71,79,80 Furthermore, good parental education about the importance of orthotic compliance was mentioned as a facilitator in seven articles. 21,28,33,50,61,75,81 These facilitators were in direct contrast to previously discussed barriers, highlighting the importance of orthotic-specific education and good communication from the healthcare team.…”

“…Finally, one article mentioned that the integration of a sensor that measures orthotic use and compliance can act as either a facilitator or barrier. 79 Positive feedback, with orthotic use, might reinforce compliance. Conversely, if other barriers exist to orthotic use, the negative feedback from the sensor could elicit negative emotions and further discourage compliance.…”