4.4 Article

Experiences of lower limb prosthesis users in Kenya: a qualitative study to understand motivation to use and satisfaction with prosthetic outcomes

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 45, 期 26, 页码 4478-4488

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2152875

关键词

Amputation; prosthesis; motivation; LMIC; qualitative research; Assistive Technology; assistive devices; service; clinician

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the motivations and satisfaction of individuals with lower limb loss engaging with a prosthetic service in Mombasa, Kenya. It emphasizes the importance of hopeful thinking and a supportive community in overcoming physical and stigmatising challenges, and the value of the service provider relationship beyond just prescribing an assistive device.
PurposeTo explore the personal and system factors that motivate and enhance outcomes for patients accessing a prosthetic service and using a lower-limb prosthesis within a low resource setting.Materials and methodsThis study employed a qualitative approach to explore the motivations and satisfaction of individuals with lower limb loss engaging with a prosthetic service in Mombasa, Kenya. In-depth interviews were conducted over Microsoft Teams with 10 lower limb prosthesis users and thematic analysis was applied.ResultsFive key themes emerged: acceptance, self-determination, hope, clinician relationship and perception. These findings demonstrate the importance of hopeful thinking and a supportive community in overcoming physical and stigmatising challenges. The findings further highlight the value of the service provider relationship beyond just prescribing an assistive device.ConclusionThese results have relevance in developing patient-centred services, assistive devices and personnel training that are responsive, motivating, and cognisant of the service user. This is of particular interest as assistive technology services are newly developed in low resource settings.

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