The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2008
Mobile arm supports: evidence-based benefits and criteria for use.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Atkins Michal S, Baumgarten Jane M, Yasuda Yuriko Lynn, Adkins Rodney, Waters Robert L, Leung Pierre, Requejo Philip
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To collect data from therapists regarding criteria for use and activities that individuals with C4-C5 tetraplegia can perform using a mobile arm support (MAS) that they otherwise could not. Reasons for nonuse, equipment design limitations, and therapist training needs were also studied.
METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used to conduct an e-mail survey for which the response to each question was analyzed and used to formulate the subsequent question.
SETTING: Rehabilitation centers.
PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen occupational therapists (most affiliated with 1 of the federally designated Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems) with extensive experience in the treatment of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).
RESULTS: The key physical prerequisite for successful use of the MAS was at least minimal strength of the deltoid and biceps muscles; 92% of respondents indicated that they would fit an MAS for motivated patients having very weak (<2/5) biceps and deltoid muscles. According to the therapists, 100% (n = 30) of their clients were able to perform at least 1 activity using a MAS that they were unable to perform without the device. These activities included (in descending frequency) eating, page turning, driving a power wheelchair, brushing teeth, keyboarding, writing, name signing, drawing, painting, scratching nose, playing board games, accessing electronic devices, drinking, and grooming. Equipment design limitations included increased wheelchair width and problems managing the arms while reclining.
CONCLUSIONS: Mobile arm supports allow persons with C4-C5 tetraplegia to engage in activities that they otherwise cannot perform with their arms.
METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used to conduct an e-mail survey for which the response to each question was analyzed and used to formulate the subsequent question.
SETTING: Rehabilitation centers.
PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen occupational therapists (most affiliated with 1 of the federally designated Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems) with extensive experience in the treatment of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).
RESULTS: The key physical prerequisite for successful use of the MAS was at least minimal strength of the deltoid and biceps muscles; 92% of respondents indicated that they would fit an MAS for motivated patients having very weak (<2/5) biceps and deltoid muscles. According to the therapists, 100% (n = 30) of their clients were able to perform at least 1 activity using a MAS that they were unable to perform without the device. These activities included (in descending frequency) eating, page turning, driving a power wheelchair, brushing teeth, keyboarding, writing, name signing, drawing, painting, scratching nose, playing board games, accessing electronic devices, drinking, and grooming. Equipment design limitations included increased wheelchair width and problems managing the arms while reclining.
CONCLUSIONS: Mobile arm supports allow persons with C4-C5 tetraplegia to engage in activities that they otherwise cannot perform with their arms.