Do clients with acquired brain injury use the splints prescribed by occupational therapists? A descriptive study

A comparison of prefabricated and custom made resting hand splints for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare prefabricated and custom resting hand splints and establish the feasibility of splinting research for larger scale trials.

DESIGN

A Randomized controlled pilot study where the randomization unit was each hand, rather than each individual.

SETTING

Thirty-two-bed spinal cord injury and multi-trauma rehabilitation unit in an urban academic rehabilitation center.

SUBJECTS

Thirty-six hands from 19 individuals with cervical spinal cord injury were enrolled during their acute rehabilitation stay.

INTERVENTIONS

Each eligible hand was randomized to receive a custom or prefabricated resting hand splint for night use.

MAIN MEASURES

The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensation and Prehension (GRASSP) was completed at both admission and discharge, and a structured interview was completed at discharge.

RESULTS

No difference existed in GRASSP outcomes or user preference between custom and prefabricated resting hand splints. Mann-Whitney tests indicated that there was no significant difference in qualitative prehension scores (U = 141, P = 0.522) nor quantitative prehension scores (U = 135, P = 0.382) between groups. Adherence to the splinting program was high (18 out of 19 participants), and no adverse effects occurred. Four themes emerged from the participant comments: the participants felt splints were helpful in their recovery; they found it challenging to direct their caregivers to help with the splints; they needed to take ownership for managing their splints; and they wished they received more education on splint rationale.

CONCLUSION

There was no obvious difference in outcome or user preference between prefabricated and custom resting hand splints.

Prescribing upper limb orthoses for children with cerebral palsy: a Q methodology study of occupational therapists' decision making

Purpose: This study identified occupational therapists' viewpoints that guide their practice of upper limb orthosis prescription for children with cerebral palsy (CP).Methods: A qualitative study utilising Q methodology explored participants' viewpoints. Thirty-nine occupational therapists (38 females) were purposively recruited to rank statements generated from interviews of experienced clinicians and peer reviewed and published literature. Statements about reasons for orthoses prescription, were ranked according to what guides decision making the most to least. Data from ranked statements were analysed using by-person factor analysis to reveal the different ways statements were grouped. The resultant factors, based on the average arrangement of statements associated with each factor, were interpreted and named as viewpoints.Results: Viewpoints identified: 1. Potential effect of the orthosis (n = 12 sorts); 2. Biomechanical presentation (n = 12 sorts); and 3. Client/therapist relationship (n = 10 sorts). The "Client's goals" statement was ranked highest across all viewpoints.Conclusions: Viewpoints identified may inform development of clinical guidelines. Further research is required to (i) identify valid and reliable classification and assessment tools to guide decision making; and (ii) establish the mechanism of the effect of orthotic intervention by considering the link between the biomechanical purpose of the orthosis (e.g., mobilise tissue) and aim of intervention (prevent contracture).Implications for rehabilitationQ methodology provided an opportunity to identify viewpoints of occupational therapists that guide their upper extremity orthosis prescription decision making.Consistent with best-practice, clients' goals were the primary focus of decision making in each viewpoint.It is recommended that clinicians consider the identified viewpoints; 1) the potential effects of the orthosis, 2) the biomechanical presentation of the child, within 3) an established client/therapist relationship when prescribing upper extremity orthoses.Practice guidelines to inform upper limb orthotic intervention may be developed using the identified viewpoints.

Rationale for prescription, and effectiveness of, upper limb orthotic intervention for children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To explore (i) reasons for upper limb orthosis prescription for children with cerebral palsy (CP), (ii) the link between reason and effect according to intended outcome and outcome measure utilized and (iii) to classify the prescribed orthoses using standard terminology.

METHOD

A prospectively registered (center for reviews and dissemination: 42015022067) systematic review searched for experimental and observational studies investigating rigid/thermoplastic upper limb orthotic intervention for children aged 0-18 with CP. The Cochrane central register, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were searched. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met selection criteria. Two studies described a specific reason for orthosis prescription, six prescribed orthoses to manage a clinical symptom and eight did not describe a reason. Eight studies were analyzed for effect according to intended outcome with no clear connection found between reasons for prescription, outcome measures utilized and effect reported.

INTERPRETATION

The lack of evidence for upper limb orthotic intervention for children with CP leads to uncertainty when considering this treatment modality. Future research is needed to evaluate the effect of orthosis wear in relation to intended outcome utilizing robust methods and valid and reliable outcome measures. Implications for rehabilitation: Insufficient evidence exists about the reason for prescription of upper limb orthoses. The connection between reason for orthosis prescription, intended outcome, outcome measure utilized and observed effect is unclear. Recommend orthosis prescription to be accompanied by clear documentation of the aim of the orthosis and description using orthosis classification system terminology. Outcome measures consistent with the reason for orthosis prescription and intended outcome of the intervention are essential to measure effectiveness of the intervention.