People with musculoskeletal conditions or other physical disabilities can experience decreased performance due to impaired functional capacity, and orthotics are often prescribed to treat these patients. A common barrier for orthotic provision is patient adherence, further studies are warranted to better understand the relevant causes of abandonment.
OBJECTIVE:
To identify patient-reported determinants of satisfaction with their orthotic device in studies that used the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) to determine patients’ perspective regarding the device and the service provision.
METHODS:
The two authors carried out the review independently using three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Semantic Scholar) and various medical subject headings (MeSH).
RESULTS:
Nine total articles for the final systematic review. The QUEST 2.0 scores ranged from 3.7–4.53 for the device subscale, 3.7–4.71 for the service subscale, and 3.7–4.61 for the total score. The top three patient-reported items were effectiveness, comfort, and ease of use. The most common reasons for orthotic abandonment were pain, discomfort, wounds, or skin irritation.
CONCLUSION:
Clinicians should address the needs of the patient when it comes to orthotic interventions to decrease orthotic abandonment, improve functional outcomes, and promote patient-centered practice.
RollSCHardisonME. Effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions for adults with musculoskeletal conditions of the forearm, wrist, and hand: a systematic review. Am J Occup Ther.2017; 71(1): 1-12.
2.
BettoniEFerrieroGBakhshHBraviniEMassazzaGFranchignoniF. A systematic review of questionnaires to assess patient satisfaction with limb orthoses. Prosthet Orthot Int.2016; 40(2): 158-169.
3.
American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process (3rd ed.). Am J Occup Ther. 2014; 68(Supplement 1): S1-S48.
4.
PeacoAHalsneEHafnerBJ. Assessing satisfaction with orthotic devices and services: a systematic literature review. J Prosthet Orthot (JPO).2011; 23(2): 95-105.
5.
HealyAFarmerSPandyanAChockalingamN. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. PLoS One.2018; 13(3): 1-42.
6.
O’Brien,L. Adherence to therapeutic splint wear in adults with acute upper limb injuries: a systematic review. J Hand Ther.2010; 15(1): 3-12.
7.
SandfordFBarlowNLewisJ. A study to examine patient adherence to wearing 24-hour forearm thermoplastic splints after tendon repairs. J Hand Ther.2008; 21-44-52.
8.
SafazITokFTugcuITurkHYasarERidvanA. Use and abandonment rates of assistive devices/orthoses in patients with stroke. Gulhane Med J.2014; 57: 1.
9.
MidgleyRToemenA. Evaluation of an evidence-based patient pathway for non-surgical and surgically managed metacarpal fractures. Hand Ther.2011; 16: 19-25.
10.
O’BrienLJBaileyMJ. Single blind randomized controlled trial comparing dorsal aluminum and custom thermoplastic splints to stack for acute mallet finger. Arch Phys Med Rehab.2011; 92: 191-198.
11.
ShahCMClafeeRPGelbermanRHGoldfarbCA. Outcomes of rigid night splinting and activity modification in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg.2013; 38: 1125-1130.
12.
RohYKLeeBKParkMHNohJHGongHSBaekGH. Effects of health literacy on treatment outcome and satisfaction in patients with mallet finger injury. J Hand Ther.2016; 29: 459-464.
13.
JosephMConstantRRickloffMMezzioAValdesK. A survey of client experiences with orthotics using the QUEST 2.0. J Hand Ther.2018; 31: 548-543.
14.
SwinnenELefeberNWerbrouckAGesthuizenYCeulemansLChristiaensS, et al. Male and female opinions about orthotic devices of the lower limb: a multicenter, observational study in patients with central neurological movement disorders. NeuroRehab.2018; 42(1): 121-130.
15.
GhoseiriKBahramianH. User satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services of a single clinic. Disabil Rehabil.2012; 34(15): 1328-1332.
16.
HeinemannAWBodeRKO’ReillyC. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int.2003; 27(3): 191-206.
17.
DemersLWeiss-LambrouRSkaB. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil.2002; 41(3): 101-105.
18.
HwangWHwangSChungY. Test-retest reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0-Korean version for individuals with spinal cord injury. J Phys Ther Sci.2015; 27(5): 1291-1293.
19.
ChanSChan,A. The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology for people with spinal cord injury. Assist Technol.2006; 18(1): 25-33.
20.
ChenCTengYLouSLinCHChenFFYeungKT. User satisfaction with orthotic devices and services in Taiwan. PLoS One.2014; 9(10): 1-10.
21.
MagnussonLAhlstromGRanstrandNFranssonE. Malawian prosthetic and orthotic users’ mobility and satisfaction with their lower-limb assistive devices. J Rehabil Med.2013; 45(4): 385-391.
22.
MagnussonLRamstrandNFranssonEAhlstromG. Mobility and satisfaction with lower-limb prostheses and orthoses among users in Sierra Leone: a cross-sectional study. J Rehabil Med.2014; 46(5): 438-446.
23.
MaoHChenWYaoGHuangSLLinCCHuangWNW. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): the development of the Taiwanese version. Clin Rehabil.2010; 24(5): 412-421.
24.
WesselsRDDe WitteLP. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil.2003; 25(6): 267-272.
25.
GaleotoGColucciMGuarinoDEspositoGCosmaEDe SantisR, et al. Exploring validity, reliability and factor analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology in an Italian population: a cross-sectional study. Occup Ther Health Care.2018; 32(4): 380-392.
26.
BakhshHFranchignoniFFerrieroGGiordanoADemersL. Translation into Arabic of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 and validation in orthoses users. Int J Rehabil Res.2014; 37(4): 361-367.
27.
CaravalhoKde GoisMSaK. Translation and validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) into Portuguese. Rev Bras Reumatol Engl Ed.2014; 54(4): 260-267.
28.
KoumpourosYKaravasiliAPapageorgiouESiavellisP. Validation of the Greek version of the device subscale of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0). Assist Technol. 2018; 28(3): 152-158.
29.
DurhamJSychareunVSantisoukPChaleunvongK. Users’ satisfaction with prosthetic and orthotic assistive devices in the Lao people’s democratic republic: a cross-sectional study. DCIDJ.2016; 27(3): 23-44.
30.
ErikssonMJylliLVillardLKroksmarkAKBartonekA. Health-related quality of life and orthosis use in a Swedish population with arthrogryposis. Prosthet Orthot Int.2018; 42(4): 402-409.
31.
RequierBBensoussanLManciniJDelarqueAVitonJKerzoncufM. Knee-ankle-foot orthoses for treating posterior knee pain resulting from genu recurvatum: efficiency, patients’ tolerance and satisfaction. J Rehabil Med.2018; 50(5): 451-456.
32.
van der VegtAEGrondRGrüschkeJSBoomsmaMFEmmelotCHDijkstraPU, et al. The effect of two different orthoses on pain, hand function, patient satisfaction and preference in patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a multicenter, crossover, randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J.2017; 99-B(2): 237-244.
33.
NasserMWestergrenRRamstrandN. Patient satisfaction and mobility with their assistive device and service [Master’s thesis]. 2016. Retrieved from Semantic scholar.
34.
GruberJSBotAGJRingD. A prospective randomized controlled trail comparing night splinting with no splinting after treatment of mallet finger. HAND.2014; 9(2): 145-150.
35.
GeertzenJHBGankemaHGJGroothoffJWDijkstraPU. Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot Int.2002; 26: 64-71.
36.
O’BrienL. Adherence to therapeutic splint wear in adults with acute upper limb injuries: a systematic review. 2010; 15(1): 3-12.
37.
LeighCMichaelDAllenS. Health economic evaluation in orthotics and prosthetics: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev.2019; 8(152): 1-8.
38.
ShanklandBBeatonDAhmedSNedelecB. Effects of client-centered multimodal treatment on impairment, function, and satisfaction of people with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. J Hand Ther.2017; 30: 307-313.
39.
CramerJACamfieldCCarpayHHelmstaedterCLangfittJMalmgrenK, et al. Principles of health-related quality of life: assessment in clinical trials. Epilepsia Open.2002; 43: 1084-1095.
