Perceptions of satisfaction, usability and desirability of the DEKA Arm before and after a trial of home use

Linda J Resnik, Matthew L Borgia, Frantzy Acluche, Linda J Resnik, Matthew L Borgia, Frantzy Acluche

Abstract

Objectives: To: 1) describe perceptions of satisfaction with and usability of the DEKA Arm and preferences for the DEKA Arm or personal prosthesis; 2) compare perceptions of satisfaction and usability by DEKA Arm configuration level; and 3) evaluate satisfaction and usability for study completers and non-completers; and for those who did and did not want to receive a DEKA Arm.

Methods: The study had 2 phases: in-laboratory (Part A) and home trial (Part B). 32 participants with amputation, (50% transradial, 38% transhumeral and 13% shoulder) completed Part A and 18 completed Part B 16 (89%) of whom were prosthesis users at baseline. Measures of satisfaction, usability and user preferences were administered. Responses were compared for completers of Part A only and completers of Parts A and B. Preferences for the DEKA Arm over personal prosthesis and proportion of participants who wanted to receive a DEKA Arm were evaluated. Relationships between satisfaction, usability and desire to receive a DEKA Arm were examined.

Results: At end of Part A, 22 (69%) of the 32 participants who completed in-laboratory training wanted to receive a DEKA Arm and 5 (16%) might want one. At end of Part B, 14 (88%) of 16 prosthesis users who completed the home trial preferred the overall function of the DEKA Arm, 13 (81%) preferred DEKA hand function and 14 (88%) preferred DEKA wrist function to their own prosthesis. In contrast, 14 (88%) preferred the weight and 13 (81%) preferred the look of their own prosthesis. Most aspects of the DEKA Arm were rated "easy" to use. No items were rated as "difficult". Users were satisfied with most aspects of the DEKA Arm, except for the weight, shoulder appearance and harnessing. There were few differences in perceived usability or satisfaction by configuration level. Findings about desire to receive a DEKA Arm pertain only to study completers. Non-completers viewed the DEKA Arm less favorably than completers. Satisfaction was strongly related to participants' expressed desire to receive a DEKA Arm in the future.

Significance: To maximize likelihood of adoption of the DEKA Arm, findings suggest that both an in-laboratory and a home use trial may be useful prior to finalizing a recommendation for prescription.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Study enrollment, attrition and completion.
Fig 1. Study enrollment, attrition and completion.

References

    1. Raichle K.A., et al., Prosthesis use in persons with lower- and upper-limb amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2008. 45(7): p. 961–72.
    1. Biddiss E.A. and Chau T.T., Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2007. 31(3): p. 236–57. doi:
    1. Biddiss E. and Chau T., Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2007. 86(12): p. 977–87. doi:
    1. Biddiss E. and Chau T., The roles of predisposing characteristics, established need, and enabling resources on upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2007. 2(2): p. 71–84.
    1. Ostlie K., et al., Prosthesis rejection in acquired major upper-limb amputees: a population-based survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2012. 7(4): p. 294–303. doi:
    1. Gaine W.J., Smart C., and Bransby-Zachary M., Upper limb traumatic amputees. Review of prosthetic use. J Hand Surg [Br], 1997. 22(1): p. 73–6.
    1. Kyberd P.J. and Hill W., Survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2011. 35(2): p. 234–41. doi:
    1. Kyberd P.J., et al., Survey of upper extremity prosthesis users in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics:, 2007. 19(2): p. 55–62.
    1. Millstein S.G., Heger H., and Hunter G.A., Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: a comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int, 1986. 10(1): p. 27–34. doi:
    1. Pezzin L.E., et al., Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2004. 85(5): p. 723–9.
    1. Wright T.W., Hagen A.D., and Wood M.B., Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg [Am], 1995. 20(4): p. 619–22.
    1. McFarland L.V., et al., Unilateral upper-limb loss: Satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 2010. 47(3): p. 299–316.
    1. Schultz A.E., Baade S.P., and Kuiken T.A., Expert opinions on success factors for upper-limb prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2007. 44(4): p. 483–90.
    1. Kejlaa G.H., Consumer concerns and the functional value of prostheses to upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int, 1993. 17(3): p. 157–63. doi:
    1. Bhaskaranand K., Bhat A.K., and Acharya K.N., Prosthetic rehabilitation in traumatic upper limb amputees (an Indian perspective). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2003. 123(7): p. 363–6. doi:
    1. Resnik L., Klinger S.L., and Etter K., The DEKA Arm: its features, functionality, and evolution during the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 2014. 38(6): p. 492–504. doi:
    1. Resnik L. and Borgia M., User ratings of prosthetic usability and satisfaction in VA study to optimize DEKA arm. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2014. 51(1): p. 15–26. doi:
    1. Resnik L. and Klinger S., Attrition and retention in upper limb prosthetics research: experience of the VA home study of the DEKA arm. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2017: p. 1–9.
    1. Resnik L., et al., Predictors of retention and attrition in a study of an advanced upper limb prosthesis: Implications for adoption of the DEKA Arm. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology In-Press, 2017.
    1. Resnik L., et al., Advanced upper limb prosthetic devices: implications for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2012. 93(4): p. 710–7. doi:
    1. Resnik L., et al., Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: user experience. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2013.
    1. Resnik L., et al., Using virtual reality environment to facilitate training with advancedupper-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2011. 48(6): p. 707–18.
    1. Barredo J., et al., Appropriateness of advanced upper limb prosthesis prescription for a patient with cognitive impairment: a case report. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2016: p. 1–10.
    1. De Vet H., et al., Measurement in Medicine: a practical guide2011, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Statistics Solutions. McNemar, Marginal Homogeneity, Sign, Wilcoxon Tests. 2017 [cited 2017 March 3, 2017]; Available from: .
    1. Institute for Digital Research and Education. Choosing the Correct Statistical Test in SAS, Stata, SPSS and R. 2017 [cited 2017 March 3, 2017]; Available from: .
    1. Resnik L., et al., Do users want to receive a DEKA Arm and why? Overall findings from the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2013.
    1. Cortina J., What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Applied Psychology, 1993. 78(1): p. 93–104.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa