5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      User-relevant factors determining prosthesis choice in persons with major unilateral upper limb defects: A meta-synthesis of qualitative literature and focus group results

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Considering the high rejection rates of upper limb prostheses, it is important to determine which prosthesis fits best the needs of each user. The introduction of the multi-grip prostheses hands (MHP), which have functional advantages but are also more expensive, has made prosthesis selection even harder. Therefore, we aimed to identify user opinions on factors determining prosthesis choice of persons with major unilateral upper limb defects in order to facilitate a more optimal fit between user and prosthesis.

          Methods

          A qualitative meta-synthesis using a ‘best-fit framework’ approach was performed by searching five databases (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019126973). Studies were considered eligible if they contained qualitative content about adults with major unilateral upper limb defects experienced in using commercially available upper limb prostheses and focused on upper limb prosthesis users’ opinions. Results of the meta-synthesis were validated with end-users (n = 11) in a focus group.

          Results

          Out of 6247 articles, 19 studies were included. An overview of six main themes (‘physical’, ‘activities and participation’, ‘mental’, ‘social’, ‘rehabilitation, cost and prosthetist services’ and ‘prosthesis related factors’) containing 86 subthemes that could affect prosthesis choice was created. Of these subthemes, 19 were added by the focus group. Important subthemes were ‘work/school’, ‘functionality’ and ‘reactions from public’. Opinions of MHP-users were scarce. MHPs were experienced as more dexterous and life-like but also as less robust and difficult to control.

          Conclusion

          The huge number of factors that could determine upper limb prosthesis choice explains that preferences vary greatly. The created overview can be of great value to identify preferences and facilitate user-involvement in the selection process. Ultimately, this may contribute to a more successful match between user and prosthesis, resulting in a decrease of abandonment and increase of cost-effectiveness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Classifying the findings in qualitative studies.

            A key task in conducting research integration studies is determining what features to account for in the research reports eligible for inclusion. In the course of a methodological project, the authors found a remarkable uniformity in the way findings were produced and presented, no matter what the stated or implied frame of reference or method. They describe a typology of findings, which they developed to bypass the discrepancy between method claims and the actual use of methods, and efforts to ascertain its utility and reliability. The authors propose that the findings in journal reports of qualitative studies in the health domain can be classified on a continuum of data transformation as no finding, topical survey, thematic survey, conceptual/thematic description, or interpretive explanation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments' ability to assess validity in qualitative research.

              The concept of validity has been a central component in critical appraisal exercises evaluating the methodological quality of quantitative studies. Reactions by qualitative researchers have been mixed in relation to whether or not validity should be applied to qualitative research and if so, what criteria should be used to distinguish high-quality articles from others. We compared three online critical appraisal instruments' ability to facilitate an assessment of validity. Many reviewers have used the critical appraisal skills program (CASP) tool to complete their critical appraisal exercise; however, CASP appears to be less sensitive to aspects of validity than the evaluation tool for qualitative studies (ETQS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. The ETQS provides detailed instructions on how to interpret criteria; however, it is the JBI tool, with its focus on congruity, that appears to be the most coherent.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                30 June 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 6
                : e0234342
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [2 ] Centre of Expertise on Quality and Safety, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                University of Chicago, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: Corry K. van der Sluis was co-author of two of the included studies in the meta-synthesis. To prevent competing interests, those studies were assessed by the other reviewers. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0459-198X
                Article
                PONE-D-19-29829
                10.1371/journal.pone.0234342
                7326229
                32603326
                24695258-9b1e-4c4e-9c71-7f5528a54032
                © 2020 Kerver et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 4 November 2019
                : 23 May 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 25
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001826, ZonMW;
                Award ID: 853001102
                Award Recipient :
                This work was funded by ZonMW and was part of a larger research project entitled: ‘care for hand prostheses can be more efficient’ (project number: 853001102; URL: https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/onderzoek-resultaten/doelmatigheidsonderzoek/programmas/project-detail/goed-gebruik-hulpmiddelenzorg/de-zorg-rondom-handprothesen-kan-doelmatiger/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Bioengineering
                Biotechnology
                Medical Devices and Equipment
                Assistive Technologies
                Prosthetics
                Engineering and Technology
                Bioengineering
                Biotechnology
                Medical Devices and Equipment
                Assistive Technologies
                Prosthetics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Devices and Equipment
                Assistive Technologies
                Prosthetics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Qualitative Studies
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Arms
                Hands
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Arms
                Hands
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Arms
                Wrist
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Arms
                Wrist
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Decision Making
                Custom metadata
                The transcript of the focus group is available on DataverseNL under the following link: https://hdl.handle.net/10411/DETFSK.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article