| Literature DB >> 35897366 |
Anuchart Kaunnil1, Veerawat Sansri2, Surachart Thongchoomsin3, Kannika Permpoonputtana4, Mandy Stanley5, Piyawat Trevittaya1, Chirathip Thawisuk6, Peeradech Thichanpiang3.
Abstract
A gap in knowledge about current splinting practice exists between the educational program and clinical service. To bridge this gap, we investigated the perspectives and experiences of Thai occupational therapists regarding contemporary hand splinting practices in clinical use. A mixed-method study was designed. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used. In the first quantitative phase, a survey questionnaire was mailed to occupational therapists. The questions were regarding contemporary hand splinting practices in clinical use at seven hospitals in the capital city of Bangkok and outskirt areas. In the second phase, semi-structured interviews were completed to explore expert occupational therapists' perspectives on practice in the same hospital settings. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results showed that most conditions receiving splints were nerve injuries, orthopedics, and stroke, which represented the service frequency of splint types: functional resting (100%), cock-up (93.3%), and thumb spica splints (80%). Bone and joint deformity prevention ranked first with muscle contracture prevention being ranked second, and the third-ranked was maintaining range of motion. Three themes emerged from the interviews: starting with the patient condition; effective function and value; knowledge and experiential skills. Perspectives and experiences of occupational therapists in splinting practice contribute to education based on the reality of practice. Integrated numerical and textual data of professional skills and knowledge in actual splinting practice can be reflected through splints and orthoses program revisions to meet future learning outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: occupational therapy; orthosis; splinting practice
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35897366 PMCID: PMC9332612 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19158995
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Demographic data of the survey participants (n = 30).
| Workplace/Splinting Practice Experience | 2–5 Years | 6–10 Years | 11–15 Years | 16–20 Years | >20 Years | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital A | 3 | - | - | 2 | 1 |
|
| Hospital B | - | 1 | - | 1 | 1 |
|
| Hospital C | 3 | 3 | 1 | - | 1 |
|
| Hospital D | 1 | 1 | - | - | 1 |
|
| Hospital E | 2 | - | 1 | 1 | - |
|
| Hospital F | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - |
|
| Hospital G | 3 | - | - | - | - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demographic characteristics of participants in the interview (n = 8).
| Participant | Sex | Age | Years of Experience in Splinting | Clinical Field | Clinical Setting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somying | Female | 44 | 18 | Physical dysfunction & community | Public hospital |
| Sompong | Male | 40 | 16 | Physical dysfunctions | Private hospital |
| Somsri | Female | 48 | 24 | Physical and pediatrics | Public hospital |
| Somsak | Male | 40 | 17 | Physical and pediatrics | Public hospital |
| Somchai | Male | 47 | 24 | Physical dysfunction | Public hospital |
| Somyod | Male | 49 | 25 | Physical dysfunction | Private hospital |
| Somruidee | Female | 38 | 15 | Physical and elderly | Public hospital |
| Sompon | Female | 45 | 21 | Physical dysfunction | Public hospital |
Figure 1Distribution of clients’ conditions in splinting practice (n = 30).
Service frequency of various splint types (n = 30).
| Type of Splint | Used | Used | Never Used (n) | Never Used (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional Resting * | 30 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Cock-up ** | 28 | 93.3 | 2 | 6.7 |
| Thumb spica *** | 24 | 80 | 6 | 20 |
| Finger *** | 24 | 80 | 6 | 20 |
| De Quervain’s | 15 | 50 | 15 | 15 |
| Anti-spastic | 14 | 46.6 | 16 | 53.4 |
| Dynamic | 9 | 30 | 21 | 70 |
| Supination | 1 | 3.3 | 29 | 96.7 |
| Weight-bearing | 1 | 3.3 | 29 | 96.7 |
Note. Ranked * first, ** second, and *** third in splint use.
Client factors in splinting practice (n = 30).
| Client Factors in Splinting Practice | Very Frequently (%) | Frequently (%) | Occasionally (%) | Rarely (%) | Never (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevention of bone and joint deformities | 43 | 53 | 4 | - | - |
| Prevention of muscle contracture | 40 | 46 | 7 | 7 | - |
| Maintaining/increasing range of motion | 33 | 53 | 14 | - | - |
| Reducing muscle tone | 27 | 50 | 13 | 3 | 7 |
| Improving hand function and prehension | 10 | 47 | 20 | 17 | 6 |
| Patients’ needs | 7 | 13 | 20 | 47 | 13 |
| Pain relief | 6 | 13 | 41 | 27 | 13 |
Figure 2Therapists’ rationale for splinting selection and application (n = 30).
Figure 3Summary of main themes.