Towards assessing the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses: most important items regarding prosthesis use in people with major unilateral upper limb absence—a Dutch national survey

References

• Kerver N, van Twillert S, Maas B, et al. User-relevant factors determining prosthesis choice in persons with major unilateral upper limb defects: a meta-synthesis of qualitative literature and focus group results. PLOS One. 2020;15(6):e0234342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Beaton D, Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(6):346–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):236–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright TW, Hagen AD, Wood MB. Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(4):619–622.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McFarland LV, Hubbard Winkler SL, Heinemann AW, et al. Unilateral upper-limb loss: satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. JRRD. 2010;47(4):299–316.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salminger S, Stino H, Pichler LH, et al. Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb amputees–have innovations had an impact on device acceptance? Disabil Rehabil. 2020;30:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims; 2009 [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download
   Google Scholar
• Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, et al. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1480–1501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes MM, Lewith G, Newell D, et al. The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice for pain: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(2):245–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Egdom LSE, Oemrawsingh A, Verweij LM, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical breast cancer care: a systematic review. Value Health. 2019;22(10):1197–1226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. Development and psychometric evaluation of the trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales (TAPES). Rehabil Psychol. 2000;45(2):130–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O'Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the orthotics and prosthetics users' survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27(3):191–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond DM, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(7):506–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger H, Franchignoni F, Heinemann AW, et al. Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(5):393–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacristán JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reneman M, Brandsema K, Schrier E, et al. Patients first: toward a patient-centered instrument to measure impact of chronic pain. Phys Ther. 2018;98(7):616–625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahabeddin Parizi A, Krabbe PFM, Buskens E, et al. A scoping review of key health items in self-report instruments used among solid organ transplant recipients. Patient. 2019;12(2):171–181.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shahabeddin Parizi A, Krabbe PFM, Buskens E, et al. Health items with a novel patient-centered approach provided information for preference-based transplant outcome measure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;126:93–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdi H. Partial least squares regression and projection on latent structure regression (PLS regression). WIREs Comp Stat. 2010;2(1):97–106.
   Google Scholar
• Pirouz DM. An overview of partial least squares. Bus Publ [Internet]; 2006 [cited 2021 Jan 25]; p. 24. Available from: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iveypub/24
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. JOSS. 2019;4(43):1686.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbe P. The measurement of health and health status: concepts, methods and applications from a multidisciplinary perspective. San Diego (CA): Elsevier/Academic Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM, van Asselt ADI, Selivanova A, et al. Patient-centered item selection for a new preference-based generic health status instrument: CS-base. Value Health. 2019;22(4):467–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1956;63(2):81–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Van Den Heuvel ER, Krabbe PFM. A preference-based item response theory model to measure health: concept and mathematics of the multi-attribute preference response model. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krabbe PFM. A generalized measurement model to quantify health: the multi-attribute preference response model. PLOS One. 2013;8(11):e79494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smail LC, Neal C, Wilkins C, et al. Comfort and function remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings of a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;19:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens-Fripp B, Jean Walker M, Goddard E, et al. A survey on what Australians with upper limb difference want in a prosthesis: justification for using soft robotics and additive manufacturing for customized prosthetic hands. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(3):342–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto M, Chung KC, Sterbenz J, et al. Cross-sectional international multicenter study on quality of life and reasons for abandonment of upper limb prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;7(5):e2205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates TJ, Fergason JR, Pierrie SN. Technological advances in prosthesis design and rehabilitation following upper extremity limb loss. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13(4):485–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das N, Nagpal N, Bankura SS. A review on the advancements in the field of upper limb prosthesis. J Med Eng Technol. 2018;42(7):532–545.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parajuli N, Sreenivasan N, Bifulco P, et al. Real-time EMG based pattern recognition control challenges and future implementation. Sensors. 2019;19(20):4596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf EJ, Cruz TH, Emondi AA, et al. Advanced technologies for intuitive control and sensation of prosthetics. Biomed Eng Lett. 2020;10(1):119–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peerdeman B, Boere D, Witteveen H, et al. Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):719–737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vujaklija I, Farina D, Aszmann OC. New developments in prosthetic arm systems. Orthop Res Rev. 2016;8:31–39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Farina D, Amsuss S. Reflections on the present and future of upper limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13(4):321–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diment LE, Thompson MS, Bergmann JH. Three-dimensional printed upper-limb prostheses lack randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42(1):7–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ten Kate J, Smit G, Breedveld P. 3D-printed upper limb prostheses: a review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(3):300–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franzke AW, Kristoffersen MB, Bongers RM, et al. Users' and therapists' perceptions of myoelectric multi-function upper limb prostheses with conventional and pattern recognition control. PLOS One. 2019;14(8):e0220899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luchetti M, Cutti AG, Verni G, et al. Impact of Michelangelo prosthetic hand: findings from a crossover longitudinal study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(5):605–618.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cordella F, Ciancio AL, Sacchetti R, et al. Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Front Neurosci. 2016;10:209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Heinemann AW, et al. Prosthesis satisfaction in a national sample of veterans with upper limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020;44(2):81–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volk RJ, Llewellyn-Thomas H, editors. The 2012 IPDAS background document: an introduction. In: Update of the international patient decision aids standards (IPDAS) collaboration’s background document; 2012. Available from: http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html
   Google Scholar
• Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(4):CD001431.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Juniper EF, Langlands JM, Juniper BA. Patients may respond differently to paper and electronic versions of the same questionnaires. Respir Med. 2009;103(6):932–934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema SG, Bongers RM, Brouwers MA, et al. Upper limb absence: predictors of work participation and work productivity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(6):892–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema SG, Bongers RM, Brouwers MA, et al. Musculoskeletal complaints in transverse upper limb reduction deficiency and amputation in The Netherlands: prevalence, predictors, and effect on health. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(7):1137–1145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar