Users’ satisfaction and experiences in using assistive devices distributed by a rehabilitation centre in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".