Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the satisfaction module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey

Comparison of two different orthoses used in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is one of the most common causes of lateral elbow pain, and orthoses are often used in its conservative treatment. However, the number of studies examining the effectiveness of the orthoses used and their differences compared to each other is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of 2 orthoses types, wrist orthosis (WO) and counterforce brace (CB), commonly used in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis on muscle activation, grip strength, hand function, and satisfaction level in healthy individuals.

STUDY DESIGN

Quasi-experimental study.

METHODS

Thirty-seven healthy individuals were recruited. Muscle activation was evaluated by surface electromyography, and maximum grip strength was evaluated with a handheld dynamometer. Hand function and satisfaction level were evaluated with Jebsen Taylor Hand Function Test and Orthotics and Prosthetics Users Survey, respectively. All evaluations were conducted for each individual in 3 conditions (no orthosis, WO, and CB).

RESULTS

Extensor carpi radialis (ECR) muscle activation was greater when using CB compared with that when without orthosis ( p = 0.036). There was no significant difference in extensor digitorum communis (EDC) muscle activation and maximum grip strength among the conditions ( p > 0.05). Hand function was worse when using the WO compared with the other conditions ( p < 0.001). In terms of orthosis satisfaction, individuals were found to be significantly more satisfied with the use of CB ( p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study highlight the use of CB in terms of EDC muscle activity, grip strength, hand function, and satisfaction, while the use of WO is prominent in terms of keeping extensor carpi radialis muscle activity low, which has been shown to be important for LE. To obtain definitive results on the effectiveness of different orthoses in the treatment of LE, more research is needed to compare the muscular activation in the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) and EDC muscles with objective methods.

A systematic review on cross-cultural validations and psychometric solidity of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey

Research is essential to reflect patients' satisfaction with their devices in the field of Prosthetics and Orthotics, record their performance and health-related quality of life. This requires culturally adapted questionnaires for each country. Periodic assessment of validity and test fit are essential elements for the long-term utility and effectiveness of psychometric tests. This article reviews the psychometric properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users Survey (OPUS). The purpose, in addition to its adaptation to the Spanish-speaking population, involves a review/update of content, statistical analyses, and validity studies, until a larger number of studies are conducted. Study design: a Systematic review. A systematic literature search was carried out in specialized search engines: Alcorze (University of Zaragoza), MEDLINE (PubMed), and EMBASE of original articles published since 2000. Eleven items belonging to the OPUS were obtained, according to the language of the country where they were validated, and promising psychometric properties were confirmed (reflecting reliability values between 0.62 and 0.95; Cronbach's α scores between 0.73 and 0.98) with sample sizes between 10 and 321. The study concluded by stating that the OPUS was validated in different languages, reporting good psychometric robustness so far. Further deployment, refinement, and validation of this survey by country is warranted in view of its promising use.

Validity and reliability of the Dutch translation of the OPUS' client satisfaction with device module in chronic users of hand orthoses

BACKGROUND

Orthosis satisfaction is an important outcome in assessing quality of care. However, no measurement specifically assessing orthosis satisfaction is available in the Dutch language. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate the Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS) into Dutch, and to assess its content validity, structural validity and reliability in persons with chronic hand conditions.

METHODS

The CSD was translated and cross-cultural adapted according to respective guidelines. To determine content validity, 10 chronic hand orthotic users and two professionals judged the relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness of the Dutch CSD (D-CSD). Thereafter, in a cross-sectional study, 76 persons were asked to complete the D-CSD twice, with a 2-week interval. Dimensionality of the D-CSD was examined by principal component analysis (PCA), and factor model fit was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed as internal consistency and test-retest reliability, including the 95% limits of agreement (LoA), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC).

RESULTS

The D-CSD items and response options were deemed relevant and comprehensible. After adding an item on cleaning the orthosis, content validity was judged sufficient. PCA indicated a one-factor model, which was confirmed by CFA. We found good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82; 95%CI 0.75-0.87), and moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.81; 95%CI 0.71-0.87). There was no difference between the mean D-CSD score at test (26.8 points) and retest (25.9 points) (mean (SD) difference: 0.86 points (4.00); 95%CI -0.06-1.79; p = 0.07). The 95% LoA were -6.99 to 8.71, and the SEM and SDC were 2.88 and 7.98 points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on sufficient content and structural validity, and good reliability, we consider the D-CSD a useful tool to evaluate orthosis satisfaction in persons with chronic hand conditions on group level. Because of a relatively high SDC, sensitivity to detect changes over time on individual level is limited.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05320211.