Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics

References

• Draper M, Cohen P, Buchan H. Seeking consumer views in: What use are results of hospital patient satisfaction surveys?. Int J Qual Health Care 2001; 13: 463–468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Storey L, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: Implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Tech Assess [serial online] 2002; 6(32), Available: 26 March 2007
   Google Scholar
• Judge S. Family-centered assistive technology assessment and intervention practices for early intervention. Infants Young Children 2002; 15: 60–68
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulholland S J, Packer T L, Laschinger S J, Lysack J T, Wyss U P, Balaram S. Evaluating a new mobility device: Feedback from women with disabilities in India. Disabil Rehab 2000; 22: 111–122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyberd P, Davey J, Morrison J. A survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Oxfordshire. J Prosthet Orthot [serial online] 1998; 10(4), Accessed 5 November 2005 from the website: http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/1998_04_085.asp
   Google Scholar
• Atkins D, Heard D, Donovan W. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot 1996; 9: 2–11
   Google Scholar
• Datta D, Selvarajah K, Davey N. Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency – acquired and congenital. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 172–177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther 2002; 15: 62–70
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fraser C M. An evaluation of the use made of cosmetic and functional prostheses by unilateral upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1998; 22: 216–223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaine W J, Smart C, Bransby-Zachary M. Upper limb traumatic amputees. Review of prosthetic use. J Hand Surg (Br) 1997; 22: 73–76
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heger H, Millstein S, Hunter G A. Electrically powered prostheses for the adult with an upper limb amputation. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1985; 67: 278–281
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Silcox D H, 3rd, Rooks M D, Vogel R R, Fleming L L. Myoelectric prostheses. A long-term follow-up and a study of the use of alternate prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1993; 75: 1781–1789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kejlaa G H. Consumer concerns and the functional value of prostheses to upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993; 17: 157–163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pons J L, Ceres R, Rocon E, Reynaerts D, Saro B, Levin S, et al. Objectives and technological approach to the development of the multifunctional MANUS upper limb prosthesis. Robotica 2005; 23: 301–310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Vincent C, Morissette M J, Desaulniers L. Clinical results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001; 25: 119–131
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crandall R C, Tomhave W. Pediatric unilateral below-elbow amputees: Retrospective analysis of 34 patients given multiple prosthetic options. J Pediatr Orthop 2002; 22: 380–383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballance R, Wilson B N, Harder J A. Factors affecting myoelectric prosthetic use and wearing patterns in the juvenile unilateral below-elbow amputee. Can J Occup Ther 1989; 56: 132–137
   Google Scholar
• Berke G M, Nielsen C C. Establishing parameters affecting the use of myoelectric prostheses in children: A preliminary investigation. J Prosthet Orthot [serial online] 1991; 3(4), Accessed 5 November 2005 from the website: http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/1991_04_162.asp
   Google Scholar
• Glynn M K, Galway H R, Hunter G, Sauter W F. Management of the upper-limb-deficient child with a powered prosthetic device. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 209: 202–205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubbard S, Kurtz I, Heim W, Montgomery G. Powered prosthetic intervention. The limb deficient child, J Herring, J Birch. American Academy of Orthopardic Surgeons, Rosemont, Illinois 1997; 417–431
   Google Scholar
• Kruger L M, Fishman S. Myoelectric and body-powered prostheses. J Pediatr Orthop 1993; 13: 68–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema K, van der Donk V, van Limbeek J, Rijken R A, Poelma M J. Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 243–249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhaskaranand K, Bhat A K, Acharya K N. Prosthetic rehabilitation in traumatic upper limb amputees (an Indian perspective). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123: 363–366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger H, Marincek C. Upper limb prosthetic use in Slovenia. Prosthet Orthot Int 1994; 18: 25–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudkiewicz I, Gabrielov R, Seiv-Ner I, Zelig G, Heim M. Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 60–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Palazzi F, de Gutierrez D P, Paladino R. The care of the limb deficient child in Venezuela. Prosthet Orthot Int 1991; 15: 156–159
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int in press
   Google Scholar
• Lake C, Miguelez J. Comparative analysis of microprocessors in upper limb prosthetics. J Prosthet Orthot [serial online] 2003; 15(2), Accessed 5 November 2005 from the website: http://www.oandp.org/jop/library/2003_02_048.asp
   Google Scholar
• Hartford K, Carey R, Mendonca J. Sampling bias in an international internet survey of diversion programs in the criminal justice system. Eval Health Prof 2007; 30: 35–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datta D, Kingston J, Ronald J. Myoelectric prostheses for below-elbow amputees: The Trent experience. Int Disabil Stud 1989; 11: 167–170
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Lunteren A, van Lunteren-Gerritsen G H, Stassen H G, Zuithoff M J. A field evaluation of arm prostheses for unilateral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1983; 7: 141–151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrozza M C, Suppo C, Sebastiani F, Massa B, Vecchi F, Lazzarini R, et al. The SPRING Hand: Development of a self-adaptive prosthesis for restoring natural grasping. Autonomous Robots 2004; 16: 125–141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyberd P J, Light C, Chappell P H, Nightingale J M, Whatley D, Evans M. The design of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: A study of the Southampton Hand. Robotica 2001; 19: 593–600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pylatiuk C, Schulz S, Kargov A, Bretthauer G. Two multiarticulated hydraulic hand prostheses. Artificial Organs 2004; 28: 980–986
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajiboye A B, Weir R F. A heuristic fuzzy logic approach to EMG pattern recognition for multifunctional prosthesis control. IEEE Trans Neur Sys Rehabil Eng 2005; 13: 280–291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Y H, Englehart K B, Hudgins B, Chan A DC. A Gaussian mixture model based classification scheme for myoelectric control of powered upper limb prostheses. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2005; 52: 1801–1811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpaneto J, Micera S, Zaccone F, Vecchi F, Dario P. A sensorized thumb for force closed-loop control of hand neuroprostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2003; 11: 346–353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cranny A, Cotton D PJ, Chappell P H, Beeby S P, White N M. Thick-film force and slip sensors for a prosthetic hand. Sens Actuators A 2005; 123: 162–171
   Google Scholar
• Riso R R. Strategies for providing upper extremity amputees with tactile and hand position feedback-moving closer to the bionic arm. Technol Health Care 1999; 7: 401–409
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zecca M, Cappiello G, Sebastiani F, Roccella S, Vecchi F, Carrozza M C, et al. Experimental analysis of the proprioceptive and exteroceptive sensors of an underactuated prosthetic hand. Lect Notes Contr Inf 2004; 306: 233–242
   Google Scholar
• Dhillon G S, Horch K W. Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2005; 13: 468–472
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayantunde A A, Welch N T, Parsons S L. A survey of patient satisfaction and use of the internet for health information. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61: 458–462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legters K, Barber Verbus N, Kitchen S, Tomecsko J, Urban N. Fear of falling, balance confidence and health-related quality of life in individuals with postpolio syndrome. Physio Theory Pract 2006; 22: 127–135
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ritter P, Lorig K, Laurent D, Matthew K. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison. J Med Internet Res 2004; 6: e29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray C D, Fox J. Body image and prosthesis satisfaction in the lower limb amputee. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 925–931
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray C D. The social meanings of prosthesis use. J Health Psych 2005; 10: 425–441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham A L, Papandonatos G D, Bock B C, Cobb N K, Baskin-Sommers A, Niaura R, et al. Internet- vs. telephone-administered questionnaires in a randomized trial of smoking cessation. Nicotine Tob Res 2006; 8: S49–57
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Internet Use Survey [Internet]. Statistics Canada; Available from the website: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060815/d060815b.htm
   Google Scholar
• Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2003 [Internet]. US Census Bureau; Available from the website: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-208.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ono H, Zavodny M. Gender and the internet. Soc Sci Quart 2003; 84: 111–121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar