Use and abandonment rates of assistive devices/orthoses in patients with stroke

The aim of this study was to examine the use of assistive devices/orthoses in patients with stroke. The rates of orthotic prescription and abandonment, and the reasons of abandonment were investigated. One hundred and seven stroke patients, who had been rehabilitated in our hospital, were visited by two social service specialists and a questionnaire was applied to all patients. Mean elapsed time after stroke to evaluation time was 48.90±23.49 months. Among subjects, 57.0% were prescribed a tripod or a tetrapod, and 26.2% were given a wheelchair. Overall, 39.3% of patients declared that they were not using their tripod/tetrapod and 28.6% were not using their wheelchair. Concerning upper limb orthoses, 22.4% of patients were given an inhibitor hand splint and 16.8% were given a neutral wrist splint. The abandonment rates were 70.8% and 77.8%, respectively. More than half of those subjects stopped using their orthoses. Regarding lower limb orthoses, 43.0% of patients were prescribed an ankle foot orthosis and 54.3% of them stopped using it. Significant amount of stroke patients seem to stop using their assistive device/orthoses despite their need. Further studies are warranted for better understanding the relevant causes

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SAFAZ, İ., TÜRK, H., YAŞAR, E., ALACA, R., TOK, F., TUĞCU, İ. (2015). Use and abandonment rates of assistive devices/orthoses in patients with stroke. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 57 - Sayı: 2, 142–144. https://ajindex.com/articles/208482

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Yeni Sekmede Aç ↗

↗Yeni Sekme

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

Fisher LR, McLellan DL. Questionnaire assessment of patient satisfaction with lower limb orthoses from a dist- rict hospital. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1989;13:29-35.
Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5:36-45.
Bernhardt KA, Irby SE, Kaufman KR. Consumer opini- ons of a stance control knee orthosis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2006;30:246-56.
Geertzen JH, Gankema HG, Groothoff JW, Dijkstra PU. Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics faci- lities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26:64-71.
Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assis- tive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12:96- 105. Stroh Wuolle K, Van Doren CL, Bryden AM, Peckham PH, Keith MW, Kilgore KL, et al. Satisfaction with and usage of a hand neuroprosthesis. Arch Phys Med Re- habil. 1999;80:206-13.
Verza R, Carvalho ML, Battaglia MA, Uccelli MM. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler 2006;12:88-93.
Gitlin LN, Schemm RL, Landsberg L, Burgh D. Fac- tors predicting assistive device use in the home by older people following rehabilitation. J Aging Health. 1996;8(4):554-75.
Gitlin LN, Levine R, Geiger C. Adaptive device use by older adults with mixed disabilities. Arch Phys Med Re- habil. 1993;74(2):149-52.
Cushman LA, Scherer MJ. Measuring the relations- hip of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs. Assist Technol. 1996;8(2):103-9
Neville-Jan A, Piersol C, Kielhofner G; Davis D. Adapti- ve Equipment: A Study of Utilization after Hospital Disc- harge. Occup Ther in Health Care. 1993;8(4):3-18.