Assessing patient use and satisfaction with ankle foot orthoses and service: A cross-sectional study in a tertiary care hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Study was done to examine the use, non-use, the quality of clinical advice, challenges in acquiring AFOs (Ankle Foot Orthosis), and user satisfaction, using a WHO based Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA) and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) questionnaire. The cohort (n = 100) consisted mainly of males (71%) and residents of city (82%). It was found that 98 subjects were under advice from healthcare providers to use an AFO but only 59 subjects were using AFO at present. Common complaints were pain, fitting related and social stigma among users. The majority of the subjects (87%) paid for their AFOs. It was found that the majority of the subjects were "more or less satisfied" with the device however 59% strongly agree that they dislike the appearance of their AFO and 37% were completely dissatisfied with the accessibility of their home and surroundings while using the AFO. It is evident that we should work on improving the design and fit of the orthosis so that the acceptance and satisfaction improves. This study also explores the possibility of usage of rATA for the specific assistive Technology (like AFO in this context) assessment. It was observed that patients often have high expectations regarding a cure with the use of an AFO. Therefore, it is essential for service providers to explain that the AFO is intended to improve function rather than provider a cure. This mismatch of understanding may contribute to dissatisfaction by patients using AFOs, hence user education is essential along with technology provision.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".