Evaluation of users’ satisfaction with lower limb orthotic devices and services in Ahvaz

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Rehabilitation Management, school of rehabilitation sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Department of Occupational Therapy, school of rehabilitation sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran..

3 Department of Occupational Therapy, school of rehabilitation sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

4 Department of Biostatistics and epidemiology, School of Public Health, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

5 Department of Occupational Therapy, school of rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Satisfaction with orthotic devices and services results in greater orthotic usage. Evaluation of users’ satisfaction could enhance the quality of orthotic devices and services. This study aimed to evaluate the users’ satisfaction with lower limb orthotic devices and technical orthopedic services in Ahvaz.
Subjects & Methods: 97 users of lower limb orthotic devices participated in this cross sectional study. User’s satisfaction was evaluated with the Orthotic & Prosthetic Users’ Survey (OPUS). The mean rank of OPUS, was analyzed with demographic data by SPSS version 22.
Results: For device satisfaction, the highest satisfaction score was for “my orthosis fits well “(4/37) and the lowest score was for “cost of purchase and maintenance of orthosis” (2/75). For service satisfaction, the highest score was for “orthotist was responsive to my concerns and questions” (4/56), and the lowest score was for “coordination between orthotic staff and the users’ therapists and doctors” (2/75). The mean rank of service satisfaction was significantly higher than device satisfaction) p < 0/05(. The mean rank of device satisfaction was significantly different among four types of lower limb orthotic users) p < 0/05(.
Conclusion: Technical orthopedic managers should perform actions to facilitate insurance coverage. They should emphasize on enhancement of orthotic quality and durability, teamwork, and client centered approach to ensure the users’ satisfaction especially the long leg brace users.

Keywords

References

1-Organization WH. WHO global disability action plan 2014-2021: Better health for all people with disability: World Health Organization; 2015.
2-Organization WH. World report on disability 2011: World Health Organization; 2011.
3-Organization WH. Standards for prosthetics and Orthotics Part 1: standards. World Health organization, Geneva. 2017.
4-Hsu JD, Michael J, Fisk J. AAOS Atlas of orthoses and assistive devices 4th ed: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008.
5-Whiteside S, Allen M, Barringer W, Beiswenger W, Brncick M, Bulgarelli T, et al. Practice analysis of certified practitioners in the disciplines of orthotics and prosthetics. Alexandria (VA): American Board for Certification in Orthotics, Prosthetics, and Pedorthics. 2007.
6-Mohammadi M, Akbari M, Saeedi H. Effect of rigid and soft foot orthoses on dynamic balance in female students with flat foot. Journal of Babol University Of Medical Sciences. 2007;9(2):25-30.
7-Peaco A, Halsne E, Hafner BJ. Assessing satisfaction with orthotic devices and services: a systematic literature review. JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 2011;23(2):95-105.
8-Ghoseiri K, Bahramian H. User satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services of a single clinic. Disability and rehabilitation. 2012;34(15):1328-32.
9-Hadadi M, Ghoseiri K, Fardipour S, Kashani RV, Asadi F, Asghari A. The Persian version of satisfaction assessment module of Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey. Disability and health journal. 2016;9(1):90-9.
10-Doyle BJ, Ware JJ. Physician conduct and other factors that affect consumer satisfaction with medical care. Journal of Medical Education. 1977;52(10):793-801.
11-Hoerger TJ, Finkelstein EA, Bernard SL. Medicare beneficiary satisfaction with durable medical equipment suppliers. Health care financing review. 2001;23(1):123.
12-Heinemann AW, Bode R, O'reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2003;27(3):191-206.
13-Magnusson L, Ahlström G. Patients’ satisfaction with lower-limb prosthetic and orthotic devices and service delivery in Sierra Leone and Malawi. BMC health services research. 2017;17(1):102.
14-Holtkamp F, Wouters E, Van Hoof J, van Zaalen Y, Verkerk M. Use of and satisfaction with ankle foot orthoses. Clinical Research on Foot & Ankle. 2015; 3:167.
15-Federici S, Borsci S, editors. The use and non-use of assistive technology in Italy: Preliminary data. 11th AAATE Conference: Everyday technology for independence and care; IOS press 2011.
16-Alsancak S. Splint satisfaction in the treatment of traumatic radial nerve injuries. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2003;27(2):139-45.
17-Jahanbin P, Abdi K, Khanjani MS, Hosseini MA. Exploring Barriers of Teamwork in Providing Rehabilitation Services: A Qualitative Content Analysis. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2019;20(3):210-21.
18-Stratil JM, Rieger MA, Völter-Mahlknecht S. Cooperation between general practitioners, occupational health physicians, and rehabilitation physicians in Germany: what are problems and barriers to cooperation? A qualitative study. International archives of occupational and environmental health. 2017;90(6):481-90.
19-Chen C-L, Teng Y-L, Lou S-Z, Lin C-H, Chen F-F, Yeung K-T. User satisfaction with orthotic devices and service in Taiwan. PloS one. 2014;9(10): e110661.
20-McKee PR, Rivard A. Biopsychosocial approach to orthotic intervention. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2011;24(2):155-63.
21-Javadi S, Farsi M. Study of users' satisfaction with orthotic services in technical orthopedic centers in Isfahan. Isfahan: Isfahan University of Medical Sciences; 2010.  BSc Thesis.
22-Pascoe GC. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Evaluation and program planning. 1983;6(3-4):185-210.
23-Magnusson L, Ahlström G, Ramstrand N, Fransson EI. Malawian prosthetic and orthotic users' mobility and satisfaction with their lower limb assistive device. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. 2013;45(4):385-91.
24-Magnusson L, Ramstrand N, Fransson EI, Ahlström G. Mobility and satisfaction with lower-limb prostheses and orthoses among users in Sierra Leone: a cross-sectional study. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. 2014;46(5):438-46.
25-Ahmadi F. The effect of powered knee ankle foot orthosis on symmetry of walking in subjects with poliomyelitis: University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation; 2015. Msc Thesis.
26-Vahhab-Kashani R, Mousavi SME, Rahgozar M, Majdoleslami B. Evaluation of Long Leg Braces in Regard to Biomechanical, Clinival and Technical Orthopedic's Fundamentals. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2006;6(4):7-13.
Jundishapur Scientific Medical Journal
Volume 20, Issue 1 - Serial Number 130
March and April 2022
Pages 53-63

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 15 October 2020
  • Accept Date: 04 November 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics