Kronik Engelli Bireylerde Ortez Ve Yardımcı Cihaz Memnuniyetinin Araştırılması

Year 2020, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 35 - 40, 31.03.2020

Tamer Çankaya , Alp Özel , Seda Ayaz Taş Demet Karabulut Sezen Tezcan

https://doi.org/10.34087/cbusbed.502872

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı ortez/yardımcı cihaz tavsiye
edilen kronik engelli bireylerin ortez kullanım memnuniyetlerinin
araştırılması. Bununla birlikte tanı grupları ve serebral palsili bireylerin
motor fonksiyon seviyeleri ile ortez kullanım memnuniyeti arasında ilişki olup
olmadığının araştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve
Yöntem: Çalışmaya 105 kronik engelli birey (64 serebral palsili, 13 spina
bifida, 14 musküler distrofi ve 14 farklı nörolojik tanılı birey) ve aileleri
dahil edildi. Yardımcı cihaz/ortez kullanımı, günlük kullanma süreleri ve eğer
ortezlerini kullanmıyorlarsa nedenleri sorgulandı. Bireylerin ortez kullanım
memnuniyetleri araştırmacılar tarafından literatüre dayanarak oluşturulmuş
Ortez Kullanım Memnuniyet Anketi ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Serebral palsili bireylerin motor fonksiyon düzeyleri
ile ortez kullanım memnuniyeti arasında ilişki olmadığı bulundu (p=0.779). Ortez
Kullanım Memnuniyet Anketi toplam skoru ve günlük ortez kullanma süreleri
arasında pozitif yönlü zayıf bir ilişki saptandı (r=0.242, p=0.015). Ortez
Kullanım Memnuniyet Anketi toplam skoru ve ne kadar zamandır ortez
kullanıldığına ait veriler arasında bir ilişki bulunmadı (p=0.811). Engelli
bireylerin tanılarının (p=0.23) ve cihaz/ortez tipinin ortez kullanma
memnuniyeti skorları ile ilişkili olmadığı saptandı (p=0.97). Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, kronik engelli bireylerde
ortez/yardımcı cihaz günlük kullanım süresi arttıkça kullanım memnuniyetinin
arttığı ve cihaz/ortez tipinin ortez kullanma memnuniyeti ile ilşkili olmadığı
gözlemlendi. Ayrıca serebral palsili, spina bifida, musküler distrofi ve diğer
tanı gruplarının ortez memnuniyetlerinin benzer olduğu görüldü.

Keywords

Hasta memnuniyeti, Ortotik cihazlar, AFO, Tekerlekli sandalye

An Investigation Of Orthosis And Assistive Device Satisfaction In Individuals with Chronic Disabilities

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the
orthosis satisfaction of chronically disabled individuals who are recommended
to use the orthosis/assistive device. In addition, it is aimed to investigate
whether there is a relationship between the motor function levels of the
diagnostic groups and individuals with cerebral palsy and the orthotic use
satisfaction. Materials and Methods:105
chronically disabled individuals (64 cerebral palsy, 13 spina-bfida, 14
muscular dystrophy, and 14 different neurologic diagnostic individuals) and
their families were included in the study. The use of assistive
device/orthosis, duration of daily use, if they aren’t using orthoses, reasons
were questioned. Orthotics usage satisfaction was assessed by Orthotics Use
Satisfaction Questionnaire, which was based on literature by the researchers. Results: There was no correlation
between motor function levels of individuals with cerebral palsy and orthotic
use satisfaction (p=0.779). There was a weak positive correlation between the
total score of Orthotics Use Satisfaction Questionnaire and daily use of
orthosis (r=0.242, p=0.015). There was no correlation between the total score
of Orthotics Use Satisfaction Questionnaire and the duration of the use of
orthotics (p=0.811). It was determined that the diagnoses of the disabled
individuals (p=0.23) and the device/orthotics type were not related to the
orthosis use satisfaction scores (p=0.97). Conclusion:
As a result, it was observed that the use of orthosis/assistive device
increased in daily life and increased use satisfaction and device/orthotics
type was not associated with orthosis use satisfaction. In addition, cerebral
palsy, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, and other diagnostic groups were found
to be similar in orthosis satisfaction.

Keywords

Patient satisfaction, Orthotic devices, AFO, Wheelchair

References

• 1. Bettoni E, G Ferriero, H Bakhsh, et al. A systematic review of questionnaires to assess patient satisfaction with limb orthoses, Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 2016, 40(2), 158-69.
• 2. Karaduman A, Yilmaz ÖT., Ortopedik Rehabilitasyon Pediatrik Rehabilitasyon; Pelikan Yayınevi: Ankara, Turkiye, 2016; pp 1079-138.
• 3. Demers L, M Monette, Y Lapierre, D Arnold, C Wolfson. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2002, 24(1-3), 21-30.
• 4. Chen C-L, Y-L Teng, S-Z Lou, et al. User satisfaction with orthotic devices and service in Taiwan, PloS One, 2014, 9(10), e110661.
• 5. Basaran S, IC Benlidayi, PH Yigitoglu, N Gökcen, R Guzel. Actual use and satisfaction of lower extremity orthoses in neurological disorders, Turkish Journal Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2016, 62(2),143-7.
• 6. Rackauskaite, Gija, et al. Impact of child and family characteristics on cerebral palsy treatment, Develoğmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 2015, 57(10), 948-954.
• 7. Erel S, IE Simsek, N Bek, et al. The effect of plastic foot-ankle orthosis appearance in childhood on satisfaction and orthosis acceptance, Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2007, 18(3), 195-200.
• 8. Lee S-H. Users’ satisfaction with assistive devices in South Korea, Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 2014,26(4), 509-12.
• 9. Dilek B, G Gozde, Y Yakut. An investigation of the duration of ankle foot orthosis’daily usage in children withcerebral palsy: a pilot study, Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation, 2015, 2(2), 47-52.
• 10. Peaco A, E Halsne, BJ Hafner. Assessing satisfaction with orthotic devices and services: a systematic literature review, Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 2011, 23(2), 95-105.
• 11. Holtkamp F, E Wouters, J Van Hoof, Y Van Zaalen, M Verkerk. Use of and satisfaction with ankle foot orthoses, Clinical Research on Foot and Ankle, 2015, 3(1), 1000167.
• 12. Hovorka C, M Geil, M Lusardi. Orthotics and Prosthetics in Rehabilitation. 2nd edn. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007, pp 135-6.
• 13. Amosun S, A Ndosi, H Buchanan. Locally manufactured wheelchairs in Tanzania–are users satisfied, African Health Sciences, 2016, 16(4), 1174-81.
• 14. Magnusson L, G Ahlström. Patients’ Satisfaction with Lower-limb Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices and Service delivery in Sierra Leone and Malawi, BMC Health Services Research, 2017, 17(1), 102.
• 15. Bus SA, R Waaijman, F Nollet. New monitoring technology to objectively assess adherence to prescribed footwear and assistive devices during ambulatory activity, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2012, 93(11), 2075-9.
• 16. Maas JC, AJ Dallmeijer, BY Oudshoorn. Measuring wearing time of knee-ankle-foot orthoses in children with cerebral palsy: comparison of parent-report and objective measurement, Disability Rehabilitation, 2018, 40(4), 398-403.
• 17. Copley J, J Ziviani. Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities, Occupationl Therapy International, 2004, 11(4), 229-43.