Prosthetic treatment is widely used for children and adolescents with upper limb difference, for functional benefit, cosmetic restoration or the performance of specific activities. Children and adolescents feel, however, that prostheses do not help function, are uncomfortable, are unreliable, are heavy and are not aesthetically acceptable. This research aims to develop an understanding of children’s and adolescents’ views on upper limb prostheses in relation to their daily occupations.
Method
Eight children and adolescents with upper limb difference participated in a focus group (n=4) or an individual interview (n=4). Data was analysed using thematic analysis.
Results
Participants described both positive and negative views of their prostheses. Participants described experiences where their prosthesis was helpful to them for social interactions, when playing and in self-care and productive activities. However, participants also described choosing not to use prostheses due to lack of functional benefit, causing a hindrance in certain activities and restriction of movement.
Conclusion
Prostheses can be useful tools for occupational participation for children and adolescents. General purpose functional prostheses for children and adolescents can result in the prosthesis not being useful, becoming a hindrance and restricting movement. Task specific devices can overcome these issues to help children and adolescents in social interactions, when playing and in carrying out self-care and productive activities.
BennettHJ (2003)
Humour in medicine.Southern Medical Journal96(12): 1257–1261.
2.
BiddissE (2010) Need-directed design of prostheses and enabling resources. In: MurrayC (ed.) Amputation, Prosthesis Use and Phantom Limb Pain: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.
London:
Springer, pp.7–22.
3.
BiddissEAndrysekJ (2011) Upper and lower extremity prosthetics for children and youth. In: ChauTFairleyJ (eds) Paediatric Rehabilitation Engineering: From Disability to Possibility.
Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, pp.189–240.
4.
BiddissEAChauTT (2007)
Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment, a survey of the last 25 years.Prosthetics and Orthotics International31(3): 236–257.
5.
BraunVClarkeV (2006)
Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
6.
BroomfieldM (2009) Guide to Artificial Limbs.
Tavistock:
Reach Charity Ltd.
7.
BuffartLMRoebroeckMEvan HeijningenVG, et al. (2007)
Evaluation of arm and prosthetic functioning in children with a congenital transverse reduction deficiency of the upper limb.Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine39(5): 379–386.
8.
Case-SmithJO’BrienJC (2015) Occupational Therapy for Children and Adolescents, 7th edn.
London:
Mosby.
9.
CelikyolF (1984)
Prostheses, equipment, adapted performance, reflections on these choices for the training of amputees.Occupational Therapy in Health Care1(4): 89–115.
DillinghamTRPezzinLEMacKenzieEJ (2002)
Limb amputation and limb deficiency, Epidemiology and recent trends in the United States.Southern Medical Journal95(8): 875–883.
12.
Donovan-HallM (2010) Supporting the positive development and well-being of children and young people with prostheses: The influence of the appearance of the prosthesis and individual choice. Report, Big Lottery Final Report (RG1/010120846), UK, July.
13.
DowlingJS (2002)
Humor: A coping strategy for pediatric patients.Pediatric Nursing28(2): 123–131.
14.
EgermannMKastenPThomsenM (2009)
Myoelectric hand prostheses in very young children.International Orthopaedics33(4): 1101–1105.
HanspalR (2003) Amputee & Prosthetic Rehabilitation-standards & Guidelines.
London:
British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine.
19.
IbbotsonV (2002) Upper limb amputees and limb-deficient children. In: TurnerAFosterMJohnsonS (eds) Occupational Therapy and Physical Dysfunction – Principles, Skills and Practice, 5th edn.
London:
Elsevier, pp.379–393.
20.
IversenOSBrodersenC (2008)
Bridging the gap between users and children – A socio-cultural approach to designing with children.Cognition, Technology and Work10(2): 83–93.
21.
JamesMABagleyAMBrasingtonK, et al. (2006)
Impact of prostheses on function and quality of life for children with unilateral congenital below-the-elbow deficiency.The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery88(11): 2356–2365.
22.
KennedyCKoolsSKrugerR (2001)
Methodological considerations in children’s focus groups.Nursing Research50(3): 84–87.
23.
LarsonEA (2004)
Children’s work, the less considered occupation.American Journal of Occupational Therapy58(4): 369–379.
24.
MackNWoodsongCMacQueenK, et al. (2005) Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide.
North Carolina:
Family Health International.
25.
MertensDM (2015) Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods, 4th edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
26.
MichielsenAvan WijkIKetelaarM (2011)
Participation and health-related quality of life of Dutch children and adolescents with congenital lower limb deficiencies.Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine43(7): 584–589.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) The Promise of Assistive Technology to Enhance Activity and Work Participation.
Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
29.
O’KaneC (2008) The development of participatory techniques. In: ChristensenPMJamesA (eds) Research with Children, Perspectives and Practices.
Oxford:
Routledge, pp.125–155.
30.
PattonJG (2004) Training the child with a unilateral upper-extremity prosthesis. In: MeierRHAtkinsDG (eds) Functional Restoration of Adults and Children with Upper Extremity Amputation.
New York:
Demos Medical Publishing, pp.297–316.
31.
PetersonJ (2011) The prosthetic habilitation of a congenital, transradial limb deficient child, a case study analyzing the functional effectiveness and the benefits of early prosthetic fitting, appropriate prosthetic equipment, and consistent caregiver follow up. MEC 11 Raising the Standard, Proceedings of the 2011 MyoElectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, 14–19 August 2011. Fredericton: University of New Brunswick.
32.
PylatiukCSchulzSDoderleinL (2007)
Results of an internet survey of myoelectric prosthetic hand users.Prosthetics and Orthotics International31(4): 362–370.
33.
RouthierFVincentCMorissetteMJ, et al. (2001)
Clinical results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute.Prosthetics & Orthotics International25(2): 119–131.
34.
Shakespeare T and Watson N (2001) The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? In: Barnartt SN and Altman BM (eds) Research in Social Science and Disability (Vol 2): Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies, where we are and where we need to go. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 9–28.
35.
ShefflerLCHanleyCBagleyA, et al. (2009)
Comparison of self-reports and parent proxy-reports of function and quality of life of children with below-the-elbow deficiency.Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery91(12): 2852–2859.
36.
ShentonAK (2004)
Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.Education for Information22(2): 63–75.
37.
Shida-TokeshiJBagleyAMolitorF, et al. (2005)
Predictors of continued prosthetic wear in children with upper extremity prostheses.Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics17(4): 119–124.
SimsT (2018)
Prosthesis use in times of transition for children and adolescents with upper limb difference. Children, Young People and Families Occupational Therapy Journal22(1): 15–18.
40.
SimsTCrannyAMetcalfC, et al. (2017)
Participatory design of paediatric upper limb prostheses: Qualitative methods and prototyping.International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care33(6): 629–637.
41.
SmithDJ (2006)
Congenital limb deficiencies and acquired amputations in childhood part 3. In Motion16(3): 56–61.
42.
SpiresMCMinerLColwellMO (2000) Upper-extremity amputation and prosthetic rehabilitation. In: GraboisMGarrisonSJHartKA, et al. (eds) Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: The Complete Approach.
Malden, MA:
Blackwell Science, pp.549–582.
WagnerLVBagleyAMJamesMA (2007)
Reasons for prosthetic rejection by children with unilateral congenital transverse forearm total deficiency.Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics19(2): 51–54.
45.
WatveSDoddGMacDonaldR, et al. (2011)
Upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation.Orthopaedics and Trauma25(2): 135–142.
46.
WinchellE (1996)
Body image, acceptance is step one. UK Limb Loss Information Centre Journal6(4): 1–3.
