VALUE OF THE SOCIAL FACTORS WHEN DETERMINING ASSISTIVE DEVICES FOR THE DISABLED PERSONS


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

One of the key aspects of the rehabilitation process of a disabled person is providing them with assistive devices (AD). Effective and efficient prescription (EEP) of AD is a vital issue in rehabilitation practices around the world. Study objective. To conduct a literature search for evidence-based findings on social factors supporting EEP of AD in rehabilitation practices in the rest of the world. Study methodology included analytical data retrieval using relevant keywords in the national databases, journals and other sources. Results. Altogether, 8825 publications were reviewed. Out of those 8825 papers 86 were selected for a full text analysis. The most relevant publications were used to achieve the study objective. Conclusions. Physical, psychosocial, economical, spiritual and environmental factors should be considered in pursuance of EEP of AD. Multidisciplinary approach is essential in managing such a complex issue.

About the authors

Karine K. Karapetian

Federal State Budgetary Institution «Novokuznetsk Scientific and Practical Centre for Medical and Social Expertise and Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons», Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation

Email: root@reabil-nk.ru
associate scientist of the department of medical, social and vocational rehabilitation of the Federal State Budgetary Institution «Novokuznetsk Scientific and Practical Centre for Medical and Social Expertise and Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons», Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation 654055, Novokuznetsk, Russian Federation

E. M Vasilchenko

Federal State Budgetary Institution «Novokuznetsk Scientific and Practical Centre for Medical and Social Expertise and Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons», Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation

654055, Novokuznetsk, Russian Federation

References

  1. Schoppen T., Boonstra A., Groothoff J.W., de Vries J, Göeken L.N., Eisma W.H. Physical, mental, and social predictors of functional outcome in unilateral lower-limb amputees. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2003; 84 (6): 803-11.
  2. Pezzin L.E., Dillingham T.R., Mackenzie E.J., Ephraim P., Rossbach P. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004; 85 (5):723-79.
  3. Schaffalitzky E., Ni Mhurchadha S.E., Gallagher P., Hofkamp S., MacLachlan M., Wegener S.T. Identifying the values and preferences of prosthetic users: a case study series using the repertory grid technique. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2009; 33 (2):157-166.
  4. Bilodeau S., Hébert R., Desrosiers J. Lower limb prosthesis utilisation by elderly amputees. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2000; 24 (2): 126-32.
  5. Kauzlaric N., Kauzlaric K.S., Kolundzic R. Prosthetic rehabilitation of persons with lower limb amputations due to tumour. Eur. J. Cancer Care (Engl). 2007; 16 (3): 238-43.
  6. Schaffalitzky E., Gallagher P., MacLachlan M., Wegener T.S. Developing consensus on important factors associated with lower limb prosthetic prescription and use. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2012; 34 (24): 2085-94.
  7. Stills M.L. Practicing O&P in a developing country. O&P Almanac. 1993; 42 (7): 45.
  8. Blough D.K., Hubbard S., McFarland L.V., Smith D.G., Gambel J.M., Reiber G.E. Prosthetic cost projections for servicemembers with major limb loss from Vietnam and OIF. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2010; 47 (4): 387-402.
  9. Ní Mhurchadha S.E. Developing consensus on what constitutes ‘success’ following upper limb loss rehabilitation. A thesis presented to Dublin City University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 2010; 477.
  10. Biddiss E.A., Chau T.T. Upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2007; 31 (3): 236-57.
  11. Hacking H.G.A., van der Berg J.P., Dahmen K.T., Post M.W.M. Long-term outcomes of upper limb prosthetic use in the Netherlands. European Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1997; 7 (6); 179-81.
  12. de Boer I.G. Peeters A.J., Ronday H.K., Mertens B.J., Huizinga T.W., Vliet Vlieland T.P. Assistive devices: usage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2009; 28 (2):119-28.
  13. Ragnarsson K.T. Prescription Considerations and a Comparison of Conventional and Lightweight Wheelchairs. J Rehabil Res Dev Clin Suppl. 1990; 2: 8-16.
  14. Resnik L. Meucci M.R., Lieberman-Klinger S., Fantini C., Kelty D.L., Disla R. et al. Advanced Upper Limb Prosthetic Devices: Implications for Upper Limb Prosthetic Rehabilitation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012; 93 (4): 710-7.
  15. Atkins D. Adult upper limb prosthetic training / Atlas of limb prosthetics: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. 2nd eds. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; 2002. Available at: http://www.oandplibrary.org/alp/chap11-01.asp (Date of access: 04.04.2018).
  16. Holzer L.A. Sevelda F., Fraberger G., Bluder O., Kickinger W., Holzer G. Body Image and Self-Esteem in Lower-Limb Amputees. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9 (3): e92943.
  17. Bowker J.H. Critical Choices: The Art of Prosthesis Prescription. Atlas of Limb Prosthetics / Digital Resource Foundation for the Orthotics & Prosthetics Community. 1992; Chapter 29. Available at: http://www.oandplibrary.org/alp/chap29-01.asp (Date of access: 05.04.2018).
  18. Fletchall S. Returning upper-extremity amputees to work. The O&P Edge. 2005; Available at: http://www.oandp.com/articles/2005-08_04.asp (Date of access: 04.04.2018).
  19. Granville R, Menetrez J. Rehabilitation of the lower-extremity war-injured at the center for the intrepid. Foot Ankle Clin. 2010; 15 (1): 187-99.
  20. Pasquina P.F., Miller M., Carvalho A.J., Corcoran M., Vandersea J., Johnson E. Special considerations for multiple limb amputation. Curr. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Rep. 2014; 2(4): 273-89.
  21. Pikhart K. Design Considerations for Prosthetic Knees in Developing Countries. Master’s thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries. 2009: 24.
  22. Atkins D.J., Meier III R.H. Comprehensive Management of the Upper-Limb Amputee. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012; 260.
  23. Poonekar P. Prosthetics and orthotics in India. In: Report of a research planning conference - prosthetic and orthotic research for the twenty-first century. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 1992; 233-9.
  24. Olkin R., Pledger C. Can disability studies and psychology join hands? Am. Psychol. 2003; 58 (4): 296-304.
  25. Evidence-based Practice Center Systematic Review Protocol, Lower Limb Prosthesis. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2017; 18.
  26. MacLachlan M. Embodiment: clinical, critical and cultural perspectives on health and illness. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. 2004; 224.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2018 Eco-Vector



Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).