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
BACKGROUND: The design and manufacturing of effective foot orthoses is a complex multidisciplinary problem involving biomedical and gait pattern aspects, technical material and geometric design elements as well as psychological and social contexts. This complexity contributes to the current trial-and-error and experience-based orthopedic footwear practice in which a major part of the expertise is implicit. This hampers knowledge transfer, reproducibility and innovation. OBJECTIVE/METHODS: A systematic review of literature has been performed to find evidence of explicit knowledge, quantitative guidelines and design motivations of pedorthists. RESULTS: 17 studies have been included. No consensus is found on which measurable parameters ensure proper foot and ankle functioning. Parameters suggested are: neutral foot positioning and control of rearfoot motion, maximum arch, but also tibial internal/external rotation as well as a three point force system. Also studies evaluating foot orthoses centering on the diagnosis or orthosis type find no clear guidelines for treatment or for measuring the effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A gap in the translation from diagnosis to a specific, customized and quantified effective orthosis design is identified. Suggested solutions are both top-down, fitting of patient data in simulations, as well as bottom-up, quantifying current practices of pedorthists in order to develop new practical guidelines and evidence-based procedures.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Non-use of and dissatisfaction with ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) occurs frequently. The objective of this study is to gain insight in the conversation during the intake and examination phase, from the clients’ perspective, at two levels: 1) the attention for the activities and the context in which these activities take place, and 2) the quality of the conversation. METHODOLOGY: Semi-structured interviews were performed with 12 AFO users within a two-week period following intake and examination. In these interviews, and subsequent data analysis, extra attention was paid to the needs and wishes of the user, the desired activities and the environments in which these activities take place. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Activities and environments were seldom inquired about or discussed during the intake and examination phase. Also, activities were not placed in the context of their specific environment. As a result, profundity lacks. Consequently, orthotists based their designs on a ‘reduced reality’ because important and valuable contextual information that might benefit prescription and design of assistive devices was missed. A model is presented for mapping user activities and user environments in a systematic way. The term ‘user practices’ is introduced to emphasise the concept of activities within a specific environment.
LINK
