Peter J Kyberd1, Wendy Hill. 1. Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Canada. pkyberd@unb.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As part of the process of improving prosthetic arms, it is important to obtain the opinions of the user population. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that should be focused on to improve prosthesis provision. STUDY DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. METHODS: The questionnaire was sent to 292 adults (aged 18 to 70 years) with upper-limb loss or absence at five centres (four in Europe) Participants were identified as regular attendees of the centres. RESULTS: This questionnaire received a response from 180 users (response rate 62%) of different types of prosthetic devices. Responses showed that the type of prosthesis generally used was associated with gender, level of loss and use for work (Pearson chi-square, p-values below 0.05). The type of prosthesis was not associated with cause, side, usage (length per day, sports or driving) or reported problems. The findings did not identify any single factor requiring focus for the improvement of prostheses or prosthetic provision. CONCLUSIONS: Every part of the process of fitting a prosthesis can be improved, which will have an effect for some of the population who use their devices regularly. There is, however, no single factor that would bring greater improvement to all users. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on information gained from a broad range of prosthesis users, no single aspect of prosthetic provision will have a greater impact on the use of upper limb prostheses than any other. Efforts to improve the designs of prosthetic systems can cover any aspect of provision.
BACKGROUND: As part of the process of improving prosthetic arms, it is important to obtain the opinions of the user population. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that should be focused on to improve prosthesis provision. STUDY DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. METHODS: The questionnaire was sent to 292 adults (aged 18 to 70 years) with upper-limb loss or absence at five centres (four in Europe) Participants were identified as regular attendees of the centres. RESULTS: This questionnaire received a response from 180 users (response rate 62%) of different types of prosthetic devices. Responses showed that the type of prosthesis generally used was associated with gender, level of loss and use for work (Pearson chi-square, p-values below 0.05). The type of prosthesis was not associated with cause, side, usage (length per day, sports or driving) or reported problems. The findings did not identify any single factor requiring focus for the improvement of prostheses or prosthetic provision. CONCLUSIONS: Every part of the process of fitting a prosthesis can be improved, which will have an effect for some of the population who use their devices regularly. There is, however, no single factor that would bring greater improvement to all users. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on information gained from a broad range of prosthesis users, no single aspect of prosthetic provision will have a greater impact on the use of upper limb prostheses than any other. Efforts to improve the designs of prosthetic systems can cover any aspect of provision.
Authors: Dario Farina; Ivan Vujaklija; Rickard Brånemark; Anthony M J Bull; Hans Dietl; Bernhard Graimann; Levi J Hargrove; Klaus-Peter Hoffmann; He Helen Huang; Thorvaldur Ingvarsson; Hilmar Bragi Janusson; Kristleifur Kristjánsson; Todd Kuiken; Silvestro Micera; Thomas Stieglitz; Agnes Sturma; Dustin Tyler; Richard F Ff Weir; Oskar C Aszmann Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Francesca Cordella; Anna Lisa Ciancio; Rinaldo Sacchetti; Angelo Davalli; Andrea Giovanni Cutti; Eugenio Guglielmelli; Loredana Zollo Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 4.677