Caregiver Experiences Using Orthotic Treatment Options for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a common condition affecting 5 in 1000 newborns. The standard first line of treatment is the use of an orthotic, which has generally high success rates, but can pose substantial difficulties and put undue burden on caregivers. The general experience of caregivers using these orthotics has not been well documented on an orthotic-specific basis. The purpose of this study was to investigate caregiver experience using prescribed DDH orthotics to identify challenges, differences between treatment options, and areas of improvement. METHODS: A survey assessing treatment prescription, respondent demographics, and caregiver experience was distributed online to caregivers whose child/children were treated for DDH with an orthotic. Seven-point positively phrased Likert scale statements and open-ended questions were included to assess caregiver experience. The results were analyzed using summary statistics and orthotics with more than 30 responses were selected for more in-depth analysis. RESULTS: A total of 530 survey responses were collected with 63% (334/530) of respondents using a Pavlik harness, 45% (236/530) a Rhino brace, and 13% (67/530) a Denis Browne Bar. The overall weighted average score across all Likert Scale statements was positive for the Pavlik harness, Rhino brace, and Denis Browne Bar at 4.19 (95% CI, 3.83 to 4.54), 4.63 (95% CI, 4.27 to 4.99) and 4.91 (95% CI, 4.58 to 5.24), respectively. In the open-ended responses, all 3 orthotics were perceived as easy to use and not hindering child-caregiver bonding, but raised concerns of discomfort and skin irritation, as well as preventing the ability to cuddle their child the way they desired. The Pavlik harness respondents consistently brought up concerns regarding cleanability. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the DDH orthotics analyzed are generally easy to use and perceived positively by caregivers, but have orthotic-specific challenges that should be a focus of future improvement work. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study evaluated opinions and attitudes of caregivers for children being treated with DDH orthotics, revealing experiences, concerns, and challenges associated with the use of commonly prescribed options.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".