- Identifying critical process steps to protein stability during spray drying using a vibrating mesh or a two-fluid nozzle
- Quantification of the soluble Receptor of Advanced Glycation End-Products (sRAGE) by LC-MS after enrichment by strong cation exchange (SCX) solid-phase extraction (SPE) at the protein level
- A Pitfall for Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging When Assessing the Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Ewing Sarcoma
- Effect estimate comparison between the prescription sequence symmetry analysis (PSSA) and parallel group study designs: A systematic review
- Living with chronic headache: a qualitative study exploring goal management in chronic headache
- Reinventing (Bio)chemical Analysis with Paper
- Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and tissue plasminogen activator and incident AF: Data from the PREVEND study
- Exploring a 1-Minute Paced Deep-Breathing Measurement of Heart Rate Variability as Part of a Workers' Health Assessment
- Global Alliance for Chronic Disease researchers' statement on multimorbidity
- Whole blood storage in CPDA1 blood bags alters erythrocyte membrane proteome
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]