Users’ Satisfaction with Prosthetic and Orthotic Assistive Devices in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: A Cross-sectional Study
Purpose: User satisfaction with assistive devices is a predictor of use and an important outcome measure. This study evaluated client satisfaction with prosthetic and orthotic assistive devices and services in three provinces in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.
Method: A cross-sectional study was done, using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire. The sample was drawn from the client register of three of the five Rehabilitation Centres in the country which are under the Ministry of Health’s Centre for Medical Rehabilitation. Clients were eligible if they had received their device in the 12 months prior to the study. Based on the number of registered clients, the sample size was calculated as 274 with a 95% confidence interval, with the final sample N = 266. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were also conducted (N = 34).
Results: Most of the assistive devices were in use at the time of the survey and were reported to be in good condition (n = 177, 66.5%). The total mean score for satisfaction (services and device combined) was 3.80 (SD 0.55). Statistically significant differences were observed in satisfaction between gender and location of residence. Effectiveness and comfort were rated as the two most important factors when using a device; at the same time, these were the most common reasons for dissatisfaction and sub-optimal use.Conclusion and Implications: Clients were quite satisfied with the assistive device and services provided, yet many reported barriers to optimal device use and difficulties in accessing follow-up services. There is a need to examine how prosthetic and orthotic devices can be improved further for better comfort and ambulation on uneven ground in low-resource contexts and to address access barriers.
Akkhavong K, Paphassarang C, Phoxay C, Vonglokham M, Phommavong C, Pholsena S (2014). Lao People's Democratic Republic Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Béhague DP, Kanhonou LG, Filippi V, Lègonou S, Ronsmans C (2008). Pierre Bourdieu and transformative agency: a study of how patients in Benin negotiate blame and accountability in the context of severe obstetric events. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30, 489-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01070.x. PMid:18298632
Borg J, Östergren, PO (2015). Users' perspectives on the provision of assistive technologies in Bangladesh: awareness, providers, costs and barriers. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10, 301-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.974221. PMid:25347347
Bosmans J, Geertzen J, Dijkstra PU (2009). Consumer satisfaction with the services of prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 33, 69-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03093640802403803. PMid:19235068
Chen C-L, Teng Y-L, Lou S-Z, Lin C-H, Chen F-F, Yeung K-T (2014). User satisfaction with orthotic devices and service in Taiwan. PLoS ONE, 9, e110661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110661. PMid:25338026 PMCid:PMC4206442
Choi J, Kushner K E, Mill J, Lai DW L (2012). Understanding the language, the culture, and the experience: Translation in cross-cultural research. International Jopurnal of qualitative methods 11, 652-665.
Creswell JW (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, London, Sage.
Demers L, Wessels RD, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, De Witte LP (1999). An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occupational Therapy International, 6, 159-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oti.95
Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14, 101-105.
Donelan K, Blendon R J, Schoen C, Davis K, Binns K (1999). The cost of health system chance: public discontent in five nations. Health Affairs, 18, 206-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.18.3.206
Epprecht M, Minot N, Dewina R, Messerli P, Heinimann A (2008). The geography of poverty and inequality in the Lao PDR. Bern: Geographica Bernensia: Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South, University of Bern and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). PMid:18362346 PMCid:PMC2290786
Hall JA, Dornan M C (1990). Patient sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of satisfaction with medical care: a meta-analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 30, 811–818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(90)90205-7
Jennings B M, Heiner SL, Loan LA, Hemman EA, Swanson KM (2005). What really matters to healthcare consumers. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35, 173–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200504000-00006. PMid:15834256
Jensen J S, Nilsen R, Zeffer J (2005). Quality benchmark for trans-tibial prostheses in low-income countries. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 29, 53-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461550500085147
Jones P S, Lee J W, Phillips L R, Zhang X E, Jaceldo K B (2001). An adaptation of Brislin's translation model for cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 50, 300-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200109000-00008
Kam S, Kent M, Khodaverdian A, Daiter L, Njelesani J, Cameron D, Andrysek J (2015). The influence of environmental and personal factors on participation of lower-limb prosthetic users in low-income countries: prosthetists' perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10, 245-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.905643. PMid:24694038
Kark L, Simmons A (2011). Patient satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: the role of gait deviation. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 35, 225-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309364611406169. PMid:21558305
Lawthers A G, Pransky G S, Peterson E I, Himmerlstein J H (2003). Rethinking quality in the context of persons with disability. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15, 287-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg048
Lee S-H (2014). Users' satisfaction with assistive devices in South Korea. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 26, 509-512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1589/jpts.26.509. PMid:24764622. PMCid:PMC3996410
Magnusson L, Ahlstrom G, Ramstrand N, Frannson E I (2013). Malawian prosthetic and orthotic users' mobility and satisfaction with their lower limb assistive device. J Rehabil Med, 45, 385-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1117. PMid:23450432
Magnusson L, Ramstrand N, Frannson E I, Ahlstrom G (2014). Mobility and satisfaction with lower-limb prostheses and orthoses among users in Sierra Leone: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 46, 438-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1780. PMid:24658314
Matsen S (1999). A closer look at amputees in Vietnam: A field survey of Vietnamese using prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int 23, 93–101. PMid:10493135
Mertens D M (2010). Transformative research and evaluation, New York, The Guilford Press.
Miles M B, Huberman A M, Saldana J (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, Califorinia, SAGE Publications, Inc.
National Regulatory Authority (2009). National survey of UXO victims and accidents, phase 1. Vientiane: NRA.
Nualnetr N, Sakhornkhan A (2012). Improving accessibility to medical services for persons with disabilities in Thailand. 2012, 23, 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5463/dcid.v23i1.86
Patcharanarumol W, Mills A, Tangcharoensathien V (2009). Dealing with the cost of illness: The experience of four villages in Lao PDR. J Int Dev, 21, 212 - 230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1549
Peaco A, Halsne E, Hafner B J (2011). Assessing satisfaction with orthotic devices and services: A systematic literature review. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 23, 95-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0b013e318217a0fe
Samuelsson K, Wressle E (2008). User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: An important element in the rehabilitation process. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 551-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638280701355777. PMid:17852301
Simon S E, Patrick A (1997). Understanding and assessing consumer satisfaction in rehabilitation. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas, 1, 1-14.
Sofaer S, Firminger K (2005). Patient perceptions of the quality of health services. . Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 513–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.050503.153958. PMid:15760300
Toole M (2004). Information gathering for health programme management: A training manual for applied epidemiology and qualitative studies in the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Vientiane, Ministry of Public Health.
United Nations (2008). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [Online]. Available: http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf [Accessed 6 July 2013].
Van Brakel W H, Poetsma P A, Tam P T, Verhoeff T (2010). User satisfaction and use of prostheses in ICRC's special fund for the disabled project in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Disabil Rehabil J, 21, 70–91.
Wagstaff A, Lindelow M (2010). Are health shocks different? Evidence from a multi-shock survey in Laos [Online]. World Bank. Available: http://econ.worldbank.org [Accessed 11th March 2011]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5335
Weerasinghe I E, Fonseka P, Dharmaratne S, Jayatilake J A M S, Gielen A C (2015). Barriers in using assistive devices among a group of community-dwelling persons with lower limb disabilities in Sri Lanka. 2015, 26, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.5463/dcid.v26i1.410
Wessels R D, De Witte L P (2003). Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil, 25, 267–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0963828021000031197. PMid:12623616
Worthington C (2005). Patient satisfaction with health care: Recent theoretical developments and implications for evaluation practice The Canadian Journal of Programme Evaluation, 20, 41.
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2016 Jo Durham, Vanphanom Sychareun, Phonevilay Santisouk, Kongmany Chaleunvong
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development