IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0178640.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda J Resnik & Matthew L Borgia & Frantzy Acluche, 2017. "Perceptions of satisfaction, usability and desirability of the DEKA Arm before and after a trial of home use," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178640
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178640
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178640&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0178640?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178640. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.