Measuring the Level of Satisfaction with Lower-Limb Prosthetic Devices Users in Bangladesh: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Limb amputation is a significant life-changing experience that affects activities of daily living (ADL), overall health, and quality of life (QOL). Limb amputation ultimately restricts social participation. Objectives The study aimed to investigate lower-limb prosthetic patients’ satisfaction with their device and related services provided in the Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed (CRP) and the Centre for Disability in Development (CDD). Methods The cross-sectional study with the convenience sampling method was used to select 145 participants. First, the participants were asked about sociodemographic information, and then the survey used the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire (QUEST 2.0). Results The participant’s ages mean ± SD of the CRP and CDD were 38.14 ± 13.37 and 39.58 ± 11.94 years, respectively. The majority, 87.5%, of participants were male from CRP, and 84.6% were male from CDD. The majority of the amputations were transtibial. The difficulty faced and device type were significantly associated ( P = 0.00) for the respondents from both organizations. The results of QUEST showed that participants were significantly quite satisfied with their assistive devices and more or less satisfied with the service they are receiving. The weight of the device, durability, safety, adjustments of the device, and effectiveness were considered the most important satisfaction levels. Conclusions Participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the devices and services, although they have had some adverse experiences. Limitations in the effectiveness of assistive devices and limited access to follow-up services and repairs were issues that need to be addressed. Clinical Relevance The results of the study showed that participants among transtibial prosthetic users were quite satisfied with their assistive devices and also very satisfied with the services received. Participants were significantly more or less satisfied with service delivery system in Bangladesh.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".