In OE a more holistic approach in the design process is needed. This requires a shift of thinking from just the OD to overall goal setting: meeting the functional needs of the patients. This can only be achieved by upgrading the traditional orthopaedic engineering educational programs. Analysing the patient's problem, explicitly formulate OD requirements, the design, the manufacturing, tuning and evaluation must become seamlessly integrated parts of OE education.
Ankle Foot Orthoses (AFOs) to promote walking ability are a common treatment in patients with neurological or muscular diseases. However, guidelines on the prescription of AFOs are currently based on a low level of evidence regarding their efficacy. Recent studies aiming to demonstrate the efficacy of wearing an AFO in respect to walking ability are not always conclusive. In this paper it is argued to recognize two levels of evidence related to the ICF levels. Activity level evidence expresses the gain in walking ability for the patient, while mechanical evidence expresses the correct functioning of the AFO. Used in combination for the purpose of evaluating the efficacy of orthotic treatment, a conjunct improvement at both levels reinforces the treatment algorithm that is used. Conversely, conflicting outcomes will challenge current treatment algorithms and the supposed working mechanism of the AFO. A treatment algorithm must use relevant information as an input, derived from measurements with a high precision. Its result will be a specific AFO that matches the patient's needs, specified by the mechanical characterization of the AFO footwear combination. It is concluded that research on the efficacy of AFOs should use parameters from two levels of evidence, to prove the efficacy of a treatment algorithm, i.e., how to prescribe a well-matched AFO.
Objective: The aim of this study was to obtain insight in specific elements influencing the use, non-use, satisfaction, and dissatisfaction of ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) and the presence of underexposed problems with respect to AFOs. Methods: A questionnaire was composed to obtain information from AFO users to investigate the variables associated with satisfaction and the relation between these variables. A specific feature of this study was the systematic analysis of the remarks made by the respondents about their AFO. Quantitative data analyses were used for analysing the satisfaction and qualitative analyses were used analysing the remarks of the respondents. A total of 211 users completed the questionnaire. Results: Our survey showed that 1 out of 15 AFOs were not used at all. About three quarters of the AFO users were satisfied and about one quarter was dissatisfied. Females and users living alone reported relatively high levels of dissatisfaction, especially in the field of dimensions, comfort, weight, safety and effectiveness. Dissatisfaction with respect to off-the-shelf AFOs for the item durability was higher than that for custom-made AFOs. In the delivery and maintenance process the items ‘maintenance’, ‘professionalism’ and ‘delivery follow-up’ were judged to be unsatisfactory. A large number of comments were made by the respondents to improve the device or process, mainly by the satisfied AFO users. These comments show that even satisfied users experience many problems and that a lot of problems of AFO users are ‘underexposed’. Conclusion: To improve user satisfaction, the user practice has to be identified as an important sub-process of the whole orthopaedic chain especially in the diagnosis and prescription, delivery tuning and maintenance, and evaluation phase.
LINK
