Investigation of satisfaction with orthoses and its relationship to duration of use in individuals with different orthotic devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dissatisfaction with orthosis use may lead to discontinuation and prevent treatment from being fully effective. This study aimed to investigate user satisfaction levels with orthoses used on various body parts and to determine their relationship with the duration of orthosis use. Seventy-eight orthotic users with a mean age of 12.45 ± 10.1 years participated in this observational study. Satisfaction was assessed using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) questionnaire, which includes subsections for device satisfaction, service satisfaction, and a total score, and the Satisfaction Evaluation Survey (SES). The QUEST results indicated a mean device satisfaction score of 4.20 ± 0.75, service satisfaction of 4.38 ± 0.77, and a total score of 4.26 ± 0.73, while the SES score averaged 13.95 ± 5.48. No significant differences were observed in satisfaction levels between lower extremity and trunk orthosis users (p>.05), or between ankle-foot orthosis and scoliosis brace users (p>.05). A weak positive correlation was found between daily orthotic use and QUEST subsections for device satisfaction (r=.364, p=.001), service satisfaction (r=.281, p=.014), and total score (r=.385, p=.001), while a weak negative correlation was noted with SES scores (r=-.306, p=.007). Overall, participants reported high satisfaction with their orthoses, regardless of the body part supported, with a weak correlation observed between daily wearing time and satisfaction levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".