Literature DB >> 25336051

Responsiveness of outcome measures for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation.

Linda Resnik1, Matthew Borgia2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on responsiveness of prosthetic rehabilitation outcome measures.
OBJECTIVES: To examine responsiveness of the Box and Block test, Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function tests, Upper Extremity Functional Scale, University of New Brunswick skill and spontaneity tests, Activity Measure for Upper Limb Amputation, and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a quasi-experimental study with repeated measurements in a convenience sample of upper limb amputees.
METHODS: Measures were collected before, during, and after training with the DEKA Arm.
RESULTS: Largest effect sizes were observed for Patient-Specific Functional Scale (effect size: 1.59, confidence interval: 1.00, 2.14), Activity Measure for Upper Limb Amputation (effect size: 1.33, confidence interval: 0.73, 1.90), and University of New Brunswick skill test (effect size: 1.18, confidence interval: 0.61, 1.73). Other measures that were responsive to change were Box and Block test, Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function light and heavy can tests, and University of New Brunswick spontaneity test. Responsiveness and pattern of responsiveness varied by prosthetic level.
CONCLUSIONS: The Box and Block test, Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function light and heavy can tests, University of New Brunswick skill and spontaneity tests, Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputation, and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale were responsive to change during prosthetic training. These findings have implications for choice of measures for research and practice and inform clinicians about the amount of training necessary to maximize outcomes with the DEKA Arm. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings on responsiveness of outcome measures have implications for the choice of measures for clinical trials and practice. Findings regarding the responsiveness to change over the course of training can inform clinicians about the amount of training that may be necessary to maximize specific outcomes with the DEKA Arm. © The International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Responsiveness; amputation; assistive technology; disability evaluation; prosthetics; upper limb

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25336051     DOI: 10.1177/0309364614554032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int        ISSN: 0309-3646            Impact factor:   1.895


  3 in total

1.  The SoftHand Pro: Functional evaluation of a novel, flexible, and robust myoelectric prosthesis.

Authors:  Sasha Blue Godfrey; Kristin D Zhao; Amanda Theuer; Manuel G Catalano; Matteo Bianchi; Ryan Breighner; Divya Bhaskaran; Ryan Lennon; Giorgio Grioli; Marco Santello; Antonio Bicchi; Karen Andrews
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test in an Italian Population.

Authors:  Greta Culicchia; Marta Nobilia; Marilyn Asturi; Valter Santilli; Marco Paoloni; Rita De Santis; Giovanni Galeoto
Journal:  Rehabil Res Pract       Date:  2016-07-18

3.  How do the outcomes of the DEKA Arm compare to conventional prostheses?

Authors:  Linda J Resnik; Matthew L Borgia; Frantzy Acluche; Jill M Cancio; Gail Latlief; Nicole Sasson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.