MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4304091454 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2022.2129849

Users’ satisfaction and experiences in using assistive devices distributed by a rehabilitation centre in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study

2022· article· en· W4304091454 sur OpenAlexaff
Reshma Parvin Nuri, Xiaolin Xu, Heather M. Aldersey

Notice bibliographique

RevueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAssistive deviceAssistive technologyBraceRehabilitationPsychologyCross-sectional studyActivities of daily livingApplied psychologyMedicineComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationHuman–computer interactionPhysical therapyEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand Bangladeshi users' satisfaction with their assistive devices, including (a) device characteristics, e.g., size, weight, safety, ease of use, comfort, and effectiveness, and (b) availability of parts and repair services. We also described how frequently individuals with disabilities living in the community used assistive devices in their daily activities and how the use of assistive devices promoted individuals' wellbeing. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional survey with assistive device users or their guardians (if under 18) in Bangladesh about their experience and satisfaction with their assistive device 6 months after receiving it. The research team developed a survey questionnaire consisting of both closed and open-ended questions. All data were collected via telephone interviews. We employed descriptive statistics to analyse quantitative data and inductive analysis for the qualitative data. RESULTS: We found that out of the 376 participants, nearly 95% used assistive devices on a regular basis, and their satisfaction with the devices was high. Participants reported that assistive devices improved mobility, independence, and wellbeing of persons with disabilities. A few participants (6.4%) reported that their devices were damaged. Some participants identified concerns with their assistive devices, including (i) inappropriate size of ankle-foot orthoses, manual self-propelled wheelchairs, and prostheses, (ii) back slabs (a type of brace) being too short, and (iii) walking frames being too large. Several participants noted pain and discomfort when they used their assistive device. Additionally, some participants stated that environmental factors (e.g., muddy roads) contributed to the disrepair of their assistive devices. Finally, participants recounted that repair services were limited in rural areas of Bangladesh. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that the provision of assistive devices requires accommodating individuals' needs and ensuring appropriate environments in which to function. The results support the need for follow-up services after distributing assistive devices. Further research could explore the impact of assistive devices on the family quality of life of persons with disabilities.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONIt is essential for rehabilitation professionals to conduct follow-up services after distributing assistive devices among persons with disabilities.There is a need for the government of Bangladesh to revisit the Rights and Protection of Persons with Disability Act of 2013 and provide further clarity about their commitment to the provision of assistive devices and associated services (e.g., repair services) and its subsequent implementation.Policymakers in Bangladesh must be proactive to translate policy commitments into practice, as it relates to building an accessible environment for people using assistive devices. Further, government efforts are needed to educate policy implementers in all relevant ministries so that all responsible bodies are fully familiar with their national and international commitments regarding the rights of persons with disabilities.Future research could (i) include user's satisfaction with the service delivery process and (ii) measure the impact of assistive devices on family quality of life of persons with disabilities.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,234
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,402
Écart entre enseignants0,364 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologyMême sujetAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityTravaux en français237 207