- Respiratory level tracking with visual biofeedback for consistent breath-hold level with potential application in image-guided interventions
- Non-cardiac comorbidities in heart failure with reduced, mid-range and preserved ejection fraction
- The 2018 correlative microscopy techniques roadmap
- Considering the biology of late recurrences in selecting patients for extended endocrine therapy in breast cancer
- Enhanced cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with eating disorders: A systematic review
- Fish Intake, Circulating Mercury and Mortality in Renal Transplant Recipients
- Association Between Subjective Tinnitus and Cervical Spine or Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review
- Reliability and predictive validity of the Standardized Infant NeuroDevelopmental Assessment neurological scale
- Hatha yoga for acute, chronic and/or treatment-resistant mood and anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- A Close Examination of the Relationship Between Self-Compassion and Depressive Symptoms
Most Used Journals
Adaptive devices in young people with upper limb reduction deficiencies: Use and satisfaction.
J Rehabil Med. 2015 Feb 12;
Authors: Vasluian E, van Wijk I, Dijkstra PU, Reinders-Messelink HA, van der Sluis CK
Objective: To evaluate use of, satisfaction with, and social adjustment with adaptive devices compared with prostheses in young people with upper limb reduction deficiencies. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 218 young people with upper limb reduction deficiencies (age range 2-20 years) and their parents. A questionnaire was used to evaluate participants’ characteristics, difficulties encountered, and preferred solutions for activities, use satisfaction, and social adjustment with adaptive devices vs prostheses. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology and a subscale of Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales were used. Results: Of 218 participants, 58% were boys, 87% had transversal upper limb reduction deficiencies, 76% with past/present use of adaptive devices and 37% with past/present use of prostheses. Young people (> 50%) had difficulties in performing activities. Of 360 adaptive devices, 43% were used for self-care (using cutlery), 28% for mobility (riding a bicycle) and 5% for leisure activities. Prostheses were used for self-care (4%), mobility (9%), communication (3%), recreation and leisure (6%) and work/employment (4%). The preferred solution for difficult activities was using unaffected and affected arms/hands and other body parts (> 60%), adaptive devices (< 48%) and prostheses (< 9%). Satisfaction and social adjustment with adaptive devices were greater than with prostheses (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Young people with upper limb reduction deficiencies are satisfied and socially well-adjusted with adaptive devices. Adaptive devices are good alternatives to prostheses.
PMID: 25678192 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]