Use of and satisfaction with ankle foot orthoses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to obtain insight in specific elements influencing the use, non-use,<br/>satisfaction, and dissatisfaction of ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) and the presence of underexposed problems with<br/>respect to AFOs.<br/>Methods: A questionnaire was composed to obtain information from AFO users to investigate the variables<br/>associated with satisfaction and the relation between these variables. A specific feature of this study was the<br/>systematic analysis of the remarks made by the respondents about their AFO. Quantitative data analyses were used<br/>for analysing the satisfaction and qualitative analyses were used analysing the remarks of the respondents. A total<br/>of 211 users completed the questionnaire.<br/>Results: Our survey showed that 1 out of 15 AFOs were not used at all. About three quarters of the AFO users<br/>were satisfied and about one quarter was dissatisfied. Females and users living alone reported relatively high levels<br/>of dissatisfaction, especially in the field of dimensions, comfort, weight, safety and effectiveness. Dissatisfaction<br/>with respect to off-the-shelf AFOs for the item durability was higher than that for custom-made AFOs. In the delivery<br/>and maintenance process the items ‘maintenance’, ‘professionalism’ and ‘delivery follow-up’ were judged to be<br/>unsatisfactory. A large number of comments were made by the respondents to improve the device or process, mainly<br/>by the satisfied AFO users. These comments show that even satisfied users experience many problems and that a<br/>lot of problems of AFO users are ‘underexposed’.<br/>Conclusion: To improve user satisfaction, the user practice has to be identified as an important sub-process<br/>of the whole orthopaedic chain especially in the diagnosis and prescription, delivery tuning and maintenance, and<br/>evaluation phase.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it