4.4 Article

Satisfaction with ankle foot orthoses in individuals withCharcot-Marie-Tooth disease

期刊

MUSCLE & NERVE
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 40-45

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mus.27027

关键词

AFO; ankle foot orthoses; braces; Charcot Marie Tooth disease; satisfaction; survey

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [UL1TR002537]
  2. NCATS
  3. NIH [U54NS065712]
  4. NINDS [R21TR003034, U01 NS1094301, R01NS105755]
  5. Charcot Marie Tooth Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that over one-third of individuals with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease were dissatisfied with the appearance, comfort, and pain associated with ankle foot orthoses. However, their ratings of orthotic services were generally positive. This indicates that there is still room for improvement in AFO development.
Background Ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) are commonly prescribed to individuals with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). The aim of this study was to evaluate patient reported satisfaction with orthotic devices and services in individuals with CMT to provide preliminary data for advancing AFO development and improving clinical care. Methods The Orthotics and Prosthetics Users Survey was distributed via e-mail through the Inherited Neuropathy Consortium (INC) Contact Registry and includes 11 device-specific questions and 10 service-related questions. Participants were also asked open-ended questions about their experiences with AFOs. Results Three hundred and fourteen individuals completed the survey. Over one-third of participants provided negative responses, including dislike of AFO appearance, discomfort, abrasions or irritations, and pain. Ratings of orthotic services were generally positive. Conclusions Lower scores related to discomfort, abrasions and pain identified areas for AFO improvement. Continued research in these areas will be beneficial to informing and advancing AFO development and improving clinical care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据