4.4 Article

Parent experience with ankle-foot orthoses for their young children with cerebral palsy: a qualitative study

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2023.2218651

关键词

Cerebral palsy; ankle-foot orthoses; parent experience; qualitative research; pediatric orthotics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored the experiences of parents of young children with cerebral palsy who used Ankle-Foot Orthoses (AFOs). The findings revealed that adjusting to AFOs was a challenging and time-consuming process for parents and children, resulting in lower than anticipated use. Clinicians should be aware of the physical and psychosocial adjustment process and work with families to optimize and individualize AFO use.
PurposeThis study explored the experiences of parents of young children with cerebral palsy who used Ankle-Foot Orthoses (AFOs).Materials and MethodsParents of children with cerebral palsy (n = 11; age range 2-6 years) who used solid or hinged AFOs participated. Interpretive Description, a qualitative methodological approach focused on the application of findings to clinical practice, was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and themes were developed using thematic analysis.ResultsFour themes described parent experience with their children's AFOs: 1) Hear what I am saying: Collaborative decision-making with families, 2) Is my child going to be excluded because of AFOs?: Parent and child adjustment was a journey, 3) AFOs created financial and practical challenges, 4) The perceived benefits of AFO use.ConclusionsAdjusting to AFOs was a challenging and time-consuming process for parents and children, which may have resulted in lower frequency and duration of use than anticipated by clinicians. Clinicians must be aware of the physical and psychosocial adjustment process as children and families adapt over time and work with families to ensure AFO use is optimized and individualized.

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