Satisfaction survey toward an innovative orthosis for children with cerebral palsy with pes planovalgus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pes planovalgus (PPV) is common in children with cerebral palsy and can cause pain and gait alterations over time. Initial treatment of flexible PPV includes orthotics, despite a lack of consensus on the type of orthosis. We developed an innovative ankle-foot orthosis (RAFO). RAFO is a one-piece orthosis designed to correct both the valgus and the flat of the foot. Its conception situated above the malleolar enables a moderate anti equinus effect. Its precise description and fabrication's process is detailed. OBJECTIVES: We wanted to assess user's satisfaction after several months of use and looked for clinical criteria of satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. METHODS: We conducted a satisfaction study through a telephonic QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology) survey analysing the device and the process in children and parents. 24 parents were contacted, whose child was wearing RAFO on a daily basis for at least 4 months. 20 parents answered the questionnaire. The results were then related to clinical data to research satisfaction' criteria. RESULTS: Mean QUEST satisfaction was 4.25/5 (4.18/5 for device and 4.38/5 for process). Advantages reported concerned weight and dimensions (95%), although 20% reported the necessity to change to a shoe size above, ease of use (90%) and level of comfort (80%). Parent's satisfaction regarding perceived effectiveness was 80%. Children with equinus due to triceps surae spasticity were more susceptible to develop pain with our orthosis. CONCLUSIONS: Parents were overall very satisfied with the orthosis. Its technical characteristics allowing both to be a corrector of flat foot and valgus and at the same time to be comfortable and discreet makes it innovative. The presence of spastic equinus is a limit for its utilization.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".