Investigation of satisfaction with orthoses and its relationship to duration of use in individuals with different orthotic devices

Year 2024, Volume: 41 Issue: 4, 758 - 764, 31.12.2024

Kamil Yılmaz , Osman Karaca

Abstract

Dissatisfaction with orthosis use may lead to discontinuation and prevent treatment from being fully effective. This study aimed to investigate user satisfaction levels with orthoses used on various body parts and to determine their relationship with the duration of orthosis use. Seventy-eight orthotic users with a mean age of 12.45 ± 10.1 years participated in this observational study. Satisfaction was assessed using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) questionnaire, which includes subsections for device satisfaction, service satisfaction, and a total score, and the Satisfaction Evaluation Survey (SES). The QUEST results indicated a mean device satisfaction score of 4.20 ± 0.75, service satisfaction of 4.38 ± 0.77, and a total score of 4.26 ± 0.73, while the SES score averaged 13.95 ± 5.48. No significant differences were observed in satisfaction levels between lower extremity and trunk orthosis users (p>.05), or between ankle-foot orthosis and scoliosis brace users (p>.05). A weak positive correlation was found between daily orthotic use and QUEST subsections for device satisfaction (r=.364, p=.001), service satisfaction (r=.281, p=.014), and total score (r=.385, p=.001), while a weak negative correlation was noted with SES scores (r=-.306, p=.007). Overall, participants reported high satisfaction with their orthoses, regardless of the body part supported, with a weak correlation observed between daily wearing time and satisfaction levels.

Keywords

Satisfaction, Orthosis, QUEST questionnaire, Assistive technology, Orthotic devices

References

• 1. Yurt Y, Yakut Y, Yagci G, Simsek E. Quebec Yardımcı Teknoloji Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti Değerlendirme 2.0 Anketi’nin protez ve ortez kullanan bireylerde Türkçe adaptasyonu. Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation. 2021; 7(3): 284-295.
• 2. Chen CL, Teng YL, Lou SZ, Lin CH, Chen FF, Yeung KT. User satisfaction with orthotic devices and service in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10): e110661.
• 3. Alsancak S, Altınkaynak H, Güner S. Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu verilerine göre Türkiye’de hastaya özel yapılarak uygulanan protez ve ortezlerin sayısal çeşitlilik analizi. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 2013; 24(1): 99-103.
• 4. Geertzen JHB, Gankema HGJ, Groothoff JW, Dijkstra PU. Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002; 26(1): 64-71.
• 5. Barbosa CD, Balp MM, Kulich K, Germain N, Rofail D. A literature review to explore the link between treatment satisfaction and adherence, compliance, and persistence. Patient Prefer Adher. 2012; 6: 39-48.
• 6. Valdes K, Naughton N, Algar L. Linking ICF components to outcome measures for orthotic intervention for CMC OA: A systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2016; 29(4): 396-404.
• 7. Mehta S, Yusuf BS, Chiew D, Rathore S, Reddy NR, Nair D, et al. Thoracolumbar Sacral Orthosis for Spinal Fractures: What's the Evidence and Do Patients Use Them? Cureus. 2022; 14(11): e31117.
• 8. Zuccarino R, Anderson KM, Shy ME, Wilken JM. Satisfaction with ankle foot orthoses in individuals with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Muscle Nerve. 2021; 63(1): 40-45.
• 9. Piantoni L, Tello CA, Remondino RG, Bersusky ES, Menéndez C, Ponce C, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction in bracing treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2018; 13: 1-12.
• 10. Tezel N, Cankurtaran D, Akyüz EÜ, Akyüz M. Serebral Palsili Çocularda Ayak-Ayak Bileği Ortez Memnuniyeti; Ailesinin Bakış Açısından. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine/Ankara Üniversitesi Tip Fakültesi Mecmuasi. 2020; 73(1): 31-35.
• 11. Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of User's Satisfaction With Orthotic and Prosthetic Devices and Services in Orthotics and Prosthetics Center of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2022; 5(1): 37981.
• 12. Lardenoye S, Theunissen E, Cleffken B, Brink PR, de Bie RA, Poeze M. The effect of taping versus semi-rigid bracing on patient outcome and satisfaction in ankle sprains: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012; 13: 1-7.
• 13. Magnusson L, Ahlstrom G. Patients' Satisfaction with Lower-limb Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices and Service delivery in Sierra Leone and Malawi. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17(1): 102.
• 14. Yamaguchi T, Kubota M, Naruse H, Matsumine A, Yamamura O, Tsuchiya H. A 6-Month Follow-up Study on Adherence and Satisfaction with Lower Limb Prostheses and Orthoses Delivered to Community-Dwelling People in Japan. Prog Rehabil Med. 2023; 8: 20230034.
• 15. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 1996; 8(1): 3-13.
• 16. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology versione 2.0. The Institute for Matching Persons and Technology: Webster, NY, 2000.
• 17. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold DL, Wolfson C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002; 24(1-3): 21-30.
• 18. Erel S, Şimşek İ, Bek N, Bayar B, Alan A, Yakut Y, et al. Çocuk hastalarda plastik ayak-ayak bileği ortez görünümünün memnuniyet ve ortezi kabullenme üzerine etkisi. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 2007; 18(3): 195-200.
• 19. Plichta SB, Kelvin EA. Munro's statistical methods for health care research: Sixth edition. 2011, p. 1-567.
• 20. Bosmans J, Geertzen J, Dijkstra PU. Consumer satisfaction with the services of prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009; 33(1): 69-77.
• 21. Çankaya T, Özel A, Ayaz Taş S, Karabulut D, Tezcan S. Kronik Engelli Bireylerde Ortez Ve Yardımcı Cihaz Memnuniyetinin Araştırılması. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2020; 7(1): 35-40.