







































All articles are permanently available online to the public without restrictions or subscription 

fees. All articles are free to be used, cited, and distributed, on condition that appropriate 

acknowledgment is included. Authors are the copyright holders of their original 

contributions and grant the Canadian Online Publication Group (COPG) a license to 

publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. CPOJ articles are licensed 

under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.   

 

CPOJ Website: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index 

Editorial Office: cpoj@online-publication.com    

ISSN: 2561-987X 

CPOJ is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, the Committee on Publication 

Ethics (COPE).   

 

 

VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1 

 2022 

 

RESEARCH ARTICLE 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of user’s satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services in orthotics and 

prosthetics center of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.10. 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981 

https://online-publication.com/wp/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index
mailto:cpoj@online-publication.com
https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation
https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation
https://publicationethics.org/members/canadian-prosthetics-orthotics-journal
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981


 

1 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of user’s satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services in orthotics and prosthetics 
center of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.10. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981 

 

 

 
RESEARCH ARTICLE 

 

EVALUATION OF USER’S SATISFACTION WITH ORTHOTIC AND PROSTHETIC DEVICES AND 

SERVICES IN ORTHOTICS AND PROSTHETICS CENTER OF IRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL 

SCIENCES 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B*, Azadinia F, Jalali M  
 
Rehabilitation Research Center, Orthotics and Prosthetics Department, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 
 
  
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

INTRODUCTION   

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) 

estimate in 2017 around 35–40 million people require 

prosthetic or orthotic services.1 Based on a report published 

by the state welfare organization of Iran, which supports the 

 

 

 

underprivileged, this organization provided orthotics and 

prosthetics services for about 47000 people between 2019 

to 2021 in Iran.2 This is a small portion of those who need 

orthotics and prosthetics services in Iran. Many people 

receive services from rehabilitation centers of Red Crescent 

Society of Iran (provide rehabilitation services to more than 

70000 people per year)3 or from private sector. The need 

for the evaluation of orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) services 

has recently increased.4 The assessment of the device and 

service quality is a prerequisite of the accreditation of the 

O&P centers.5 Regardless of the clinical practice ethics, 

 
OPEN  ACCESS Volume 5, Issue 1, Article No.10. 2022 

 

 

Journal Homepage: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index 

 

ABSTRACT 

BACKGROUND: The number of patients receiving orthotics and prosthetic services is increasing 

globally. A way to investigate patients’ insight about services provided to them is to evaluate their 

satisfaction with the received services. Furthermore, incorporating patients’ preferences into practice is 

an inseparable part of evidence-based practice. Applying such information in practice can contribute to 

the enhancement of the quality of services, the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, and finally, 

the economic growth of service centers. 

OBJECTIVE(S): To evaluate patients’ satisfaction with the orthotic and prosthetic devices and services 

provided by the orthotics and prosthetics clinic of Iran University of Medical Sciences. 

METHODOLOGY: In this study, 173 people referring to the orthotics and prosthetics clinic of Iran 

University of Medical Sciences were recruited, and their satisfaction level was examined using the 

Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey questionnaire (OPUS) through a phone interview. 

FINDINGS: Concerning the devices, the mean value of total satisfaction score was 74:00±19.80 and 

the highest score belonged to no wear or rupture of the clothes with their devices (mean value = 

4.76±0.84). In terms of services, the mean value of total satisfaction score was 72.12 ± 15.90 with the 

highest score belonging to the politeness of the clinic staff (mean value = 4.92±0.57). When the time 

point from receiving service was taken into account, the patients who received the service for less than 

a year showed higher satisfaction level with the service (p=0.024). Although satisfaction with the device 

was slightly higher among the participants who used the devices for more than a year, no significant 

difference was observed between the two groups in terms of device satisfaction. 

CONCLUSIONS: The overall satisfaction level from the devices and services was relatively high. 

However, the satisfaction level with the costs and coordination of the staff with the physicians showed 

a decline. 

ARTICLE INFO 

Received: February 19, 2022 

Accepted: June 29, 2022 

Published: July 17, 2022 

CITATION 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, 

Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of 

user’s satisfaction with orthotic and 

prosthetic devices and services in 

orthotics and prosthetics center of 

Iran University of Medical 

Sciences. Canadian Prosthetics & 

Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, 

Issue 1, No.10. 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.3

7981 

KEYWORDS 

Orthosis, Prosthesis, satisfaction, 

Survey, Orthotics, Prosthetics, 

Rehabilitation 

* CORRESPONDING AUTHOR 

Behshid Farahmand, PhD 
Rehabilitation Research Center, Orthotics and Prosthetics 
Department, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of 
Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 
Email: Farahmand.b@iums.ac.ir 
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1756-8335 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981
mailto:Farahmand.b@iums.ac.ir
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1756-8335


 

2 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of user’s satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services in orthotics and prosthetics 
center of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.10. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981 

ISSN: 2561-987X 
EVALUATION OF USER’S SATISFACTION WITH ORTHOTIC AND PROSTHETIC DEVICES AND SERVICES  

Baghbanbashi et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
outcome assessment can lead to the economic growth of 

the O&P facilities, as identification of the customers' needs 

and willingness to satisfy them can preserve the customers 

for the organization.6 Evidence has shown a close 

relationship between customers’ satisfaction and the 

profitability of the organization.7 In this way, most 

organizations are interested in evaluating the quality of their 

service to improve their customers’ satisfaction and thereby 

survive the organization.8 The patient is a key factor in such 

assessments.9 Satisfaction with the services is a proper 

index for estimating the quality of services and their 

presentation to the clients, which helps adaptation of the 

service or product to the needs and expectations of the 

clients. Satisfaction is defined as the experience of the client 

after receiving a product or service.10 In other words, 

customer satisfaction and desirability of the product or 

service are related to the fulfillment of his/her needs. 

Satisfaction assessment in health management not only 

provides the information required to improve the health care 

services but also may indirectly improve the health state of 

individuals due to its positive psychological and mental 

effects. Patients' satisfaction with health services is 

recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as one 

of the five indicators of service quality.11,12 Satisfaction 

assessment in the O&P field is more difficult than other parts 

of the health system because health practitioners, deliver 

wearable devices such as orthoses, prostheses, insoles, 

and medical shoes to the patients in addition to providing 

services such as patients assessment and training.10,13 This 

means that the satisfaction assessment should include two 

aspects: the service assessment and the quality assess-

ment of the delivered device.10 

DeRuyter et al.14 defined patients’ satisfaction along with 

other factors such as clinical outcomes, functional status, 

quality of life, and cost as key indicators in the field of 

assistive devices. Moreover, achieving more favorable 

clinical outcomes requires the patient's adherence to the 

use of the prescribed orthoses or prostheses.15,16 The 

patient’s satisfaction is a factor playing a role in his/her 

adherence to the treatment.17 Some researchers believe 

that esthetic factors and convenience, as well as economic 

status and social issues, affect the level of satisfaction with 

an orthosis or a prosthesis and can improve patients’ 

adherence to the orthotic/prosthetic intervention.18 In Iran, 

the results of a survey on satisfaction with O&P facilities in 

a private clinic in 2012 showed that despite dissatisfaction 

with the appearance of device and its durability and delivery 

process, the patients expressed a high level of satisfaction 

with the fitness of their device.19 

Various instruments and methods have been developed to 

measure the satisfaction of the users of orthotic and 

prosthetic devices among which, modified Servqual 

questionnaire,4 Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with 

Assistive Technology,20 The Trinity Amputation and 

Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES),21 and orthotics and 

prosthetics users survey (OPUS)22 can be mentioned. The 

OPUS questionnaire designed by Heinemann et al.22 for 

estimating the satisfaction level of the users of orthotic and 

prosthetic devices and services has gained high validity and 

reliability. 

Assessing the satisfaction level of users and identifying the 

factors that lead to dissatisfaction along with its possible 

solutions can provide valuable information to improve the 

quality of devices and services provided by O&P centers, 

which in turn can increase the client’s satisfaction, improve 

clients' functional status, and finally advance the economic 

growth of these centers. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, 

device and service quality assessment is a prerequisite in 

the accreditation of O&P facilities. Despite the significance 

of user satisfaction in the treatment success and economic 

growth of service provider centers, a limited number of 

studies have addressed this issue in the O&P 

field.10,13,19,23,24 Since accreditation is the responsibility of 

national universities of medical sciences of each province, 

the present study was conducted to investigate the 

satisfaction of patients referred to the O&P center of Iran 

University of medical sciences as an educational and 

therapy center.  

METHODOLOGY 

The present study is descriptive-analytical research whose 

protocol was approved by the ethics committee at Iran 

University of Medical Sciences (IUMC). A total of 173 

volunteers were selected among the people referring to the 

O&P center at the Rehabilitation School of Iran University of 

Medical Sciences through a convenience sampling method. 

Non-electronic (paper-based) data including patients' 

contact information are stored in the O & P center. Patients' 

contact information based on their permission were 

transmitted to the main investigator. The inclusion criterion 

was a history of at least 3 months of using orthoses or 

prostheses that were made and prescribed in the O&P 

center of the Rehabilitation school. Subjects who were 

unable to respond to the questionnaire or phone interview 

due to cognitive or speech problems were excluded from 

the study. 

The origin version of OPUS questionnaire (satisfaction 

module) answered through phone interviews was used to 

assess the users' satisfaction with the O&P devices and 

services.22 If the user was younger than ten, parents were 

contacted. The OPUS questionnaire includes 5 domains: 

lower extremity functional status (LEFS), upper extremity 

functional status (UEFS), client satisfaction with devices 

(CSD), client satisfaction with services (CSS), and Health-

related quality of life (HRQoL). The validity and reliability of 

this questionnaire were confirmed in Persian (Cronbach's 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981


 

3 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of user’s satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services in orthotics and prosthetics 
center of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.10. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981 

ISSN: 2561-987X 
EVALUATION OF USER’S SATISFACTION WITH ORTHOTIC AND PROSTHETIC DEVICES AND SERVICES  

Baghbanbashi et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
alpha coefficient of 0.71 and 0.89 for device and service 

satisfaction, respectively).25 

The satisfaction domain of the OPUS questionnaire is 

composed of 21 questions, 11 of which are related to the 

evaluation of "satisfaction with the received device, i.e., 

orthoses and prostheses" and the other 10 items are related 

to the evaluation of "service satisfaction". The section 

related to "device" in the OPUS questionnaire explores 

various aspects of the patients’ satisfaction including proper 

fitting, weight, durability, maintenance, easy to put on, 

appearance, comfort of use, wear, and tear of clothing, pain-

free when wearing the device, skin irritation and affordability 

of device repair and replacement.  

The service section also assesses the patient’s satisfaction 

with the level of courtesy and respect of the center staff, 

staff response to concerns and questions of the 

participants, opportunities for the patient to express their 

concerns, training how to use the device, waiting time, 

patient involvement in the decision-making process, 

discussion of problems, receiving an appointment within a 

reasonable time, question the explanations to choose the 

most appropriate device, and coordination between staff of 

the center and therapists with the doctors. The scoring 

guideline was used to score the response to each question 

(5=Strongly Agree, 4= Agree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 

2=Disagree,1=Strongly disagree). "Satisfaction With 

Device" score was the sum of the scores for items 1-11 (11 

– 55). "Satisfaction With Services" score was the sum of the 

scores for items 12-21 (10 – 50). Higher scores indicate 

better outcomes for both measures. The provided table was 

used to convert the raw scores to Rasch measures (0-

100).26 

A demographic questionnaire was also completed which 

collected information on name, surname, age, gender, level 

of education, occupation, involved organ, involved side, 

cause of receiving the device, year of receiving the service, 

duration of device use, and the treatment costs (%) covered 

by insurance companies. The de-identified data has been 

stored in SPSS format and if requested, Excel format can 

be transformed. This data can be requested from the O & P 

department via Corresponding author. 

Statistical analysis:  

To analyze the data, SPSS software (version 22) was used. 

Shapiro-Wilk test was used to ensure the normal distribution 

of overall satisfaction scores. Frequency was used to 

describe qualitative variables while mean and standard 

deviation were employed for quantitative variables. Kruskal-

Wallis test was adopted to compare the satisfaction scores 

of the device and services between the age groups. A 

Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the two groups of 

men and women, as well as the groups who used the device 

for 3 months to a year and those who used the device for 

more than a year. The statistical significance level was set 

at 0.05.   

RESULTS 

Men make up 58% of the study population whereas the 

percentage of women was 42%, the minimum and 

maximum age of clients were 4 and 85 years, respectively 

(Table 1). The mean and standard deviation of the users’ 

age was 32.1± 23.5 years.  Most devices received by the 

clients were insoles and medical shoes (145 cases).  

Table 1: Demographic characteristics and device types. 
 

 

Satisfaction with Device: 

 

The findings of this study indicated that in the device 

satisfaction section, the lowest level of satisfaction was 

related to the affordability to repair or replace the prosthesis 

or orthosis, as well as purchasing or maintaining them 

(Table 2). The higher satisfaction rate was for the item 

concerned with no wear or rupture of the clothes by the 

received device. In the present study, the overall 

satisfaction with the device was 74.00 ± 19.80. According to 

the results of a Kruskal-Wallis Test, satisfaction with the 

device (H (3) =0.97, p=0.808) did not exhibit a significant 

difference between age groups. A Mann-Whitney U test 

revealed no significant difference in the satisfaction level of 

males and females with a device (U=3132.0, z=-1.61, 

p=.107). Satisfaction with the device did not show a 

significant difference when participants were classified into 

two groups in terms of duration of using the device (3 

months to 1 year and more than one year), albeit those who 

used the device for more than one year expressed higher 

satisfaction (U=1921, z=-1.52, p=.128). 

 

Satisfaction with Service: 

 

The satisfaction with the services summed up to 72.12 

±15.89. In terms of service satisfaction, the highest 

 N 

Gender 100 Males, 73 Females 

Age (year)  

     <10 33 

     10-34 63 

     35-64 59 

     >65 18 

Device types  

     Footwear / insole 

145 (Flatfoot/Cavus/Heel 

pain/Corn&Callus/Clubfoot/Leg length 

discrepancy/Diabetes) 

     Lower limb orthosis 20 (Stroke/CP/Neuropathy/Orthopedic) 

     Hallux valgus splint 8 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981


 

4 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of user’s satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services in orthotics and prosthetics 
center of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.10. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981 

ISSN: 2561-987X 
EVALUATION OF USER’S SATISFACTION WITH ORTHOTIC AND PROSTHETIC DEVICES AND SERVICES  

Baghbanbashi et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
satisfaction was related to the courtesy and respectful 

behavior of the employees of the complex (4.92± 0.57). The 

lowest level of satisfaction from services was for the 

coordination of clinic staff with other treatment staff (1.56 ± 

2.11). According to the results of a Kruskal-Wallis Test, 

satisfaction with services (H (3) =4.24, p=0.237) did not 

exhibit a significant difference between age groups. A 

Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant difference in 

the satisfaction level of males and females with services 

(U=3594.0, z=-0.18, p=0.856). In terms of duration of the 

device use, service satisfaction was higher in the group that 

received the service for less than a year (Table 3). The two 

groups showed a significant difference in terms of service 

satisfaction (U=1756.5, z=-2.25, p=0.024). 

 

Table 2: Mean, standard deviation and range of items and (device 

and service) total scores of the OPUS. 

 

Table 3: Comparison of level of satisfaction with device and with 

service between and among groups based on gender, age, and 

device use time. 

 

Satisfaction with service Satisfaction with device Group 

 

p=0.237 

 

69.5 ± 14.43 

74.59 ± 15.86 

72.10 ± 17.68 

68.35 ± 11.23 

 

p=0.808 

 

73.76 ± 20.71 

72.45 ± 19.48 

74.45 ± 19.47 

78.37 ± 21.23 

Age group 

    <10 

    10-34 

    35-64 

    >65 

 

p=0.024*  

 

79.86 ± 18.35 

70.30 ± 14.74 

 

p=0.128  

 

69.74 ± 20.05 

75.06 ± 19.66 

Device use time 

    3months-1year 

    >1 year 

 

p=0.856 

 

72.33 ± 16.39 

71.97 ± 15.59 

 

p=0.107 

 

71.26 ± 20.42 

75.99 ± 19.18 

Gender 

    Female 

    Male 

* Significantly different 

 

DISCUSSION 

Despite the significance of user satisfaction in the treatment 

success and economic growth of service provider centers, 

a limited number of studies have addressed this issue in the 

O&P field.10,13,19,23,24 In this context, the present study 

aimed to assess the satisfaction of the clients of the O&P 

center of Iran University of medical sciences through OPUS 

questionnaire.  

Satisfaction with Device: 

The findings of this study showed that in the device 

satisfaction section, the lowest level of satisfaction was 

related to the affordability to repair or replace the prosthesis 

or orthosis, followed by the affordability to purchase, and 

maintain them. The O&P center of the Rehabilitation School 

is an educational-clinical center and only the cost of 

materials and consumable parts are paid by the clients, so 

patients could obtain orthoses and prostheses much 

cheaper than private centers. Despite this privilege the 

"affordability" showed to be the main source of lower 

satisfaction in this survey. This survey was completed 

between 2015 and 2018. Based on the minimum monthly 

wage and benefits for a family with two children set by the 

government through these years, the cost of receiving lower 

limb orthoses in IUMS O&P center would be approximately 

9%-12.4% of the minimum wage for foot orthoses, 19.7%-

38.2% for medical shoes and 23.6%-36.5% for lower limb 

orthoses. Financial issues are one of the challenges in 

providing O&P services. Poor coverage of basic and 

supplementary insurance services makes the O&P users 

pay most of the costs out of pocket. Only a couple of 

Prostheses and Orthoses are covered by basic health 

insurance companies. Furthermore, although the general 

conditions of supplementary insurance services (private or 

group health) for P&O is better, many people find the 

insurance premiums high to afford. However, most of these 

companies set a ceiling to reimburse costs which may 

restrict the ability of patients for purchasing the services. 

Mean ± SD maximum Minimum  

4.62 ± 0.93 5 0 Fits well 

4.42 ± 1.08 5 0 Manageable weight 

4.36 ± 1.14 5 0 Comfortable 

4.51 ± 1.04 5 0 Easy to put on 

4.63 ± 0.84 5 1 Looks good 

4.72 ± 0.80 5 1 Durable 

4.76 ± 0.84 5 0 
Wear and tear 
clothes 

4.55 ± 1.04 5 1 
Skin abrasion and 
irritation 

4.49 ± 1.05 5 1 Pain free 

3.95 ± 1.57 5 0 Afford purchase 

3.95 ± 1.54 5 0 Afford repairs 

4.77 ± 0.92 5 0 
Appointment in 
reasonable time 

4.92 ± 0.57 5 0 Showing courtesy 

4.85 ± 0.54 5 2 
Wait reasonable 
time 

4.88 ± 0.53 5 1 
Informed about 
choices 

4.86 ± 0.58 5 0 
Opportunity to 
express concerns 

4.87 ± 0.53 5 0 
Responsive to 
concerns 

4.87 ± 0.52 5 1 
Training for use 
and maintenance 

4.83 ± 0.66 5 1 
Discussion about 
problems 

1.56 ± 2.11 5 0 
Coordination with 
therapist 

4.46 ± 1.44 5 0 
Participation in 
decision making 

74.00 ± 19.80 100 33.06 
Satisfaction with 
device 

 ± 15.8972.12 100 37.72 
Satisfaction with 
service 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981


 

5 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of user’s satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services in orthotics and prosthetics 
center of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.10. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981 

ISSN: 2561-987X 
EVALUATION OF USER’S SATISFACTION WITH ORTHOTIC AND PROSTHETIC DEVICES AND SERVICES  

Baghbanbashi et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
The most effective solution would be the boosted coverage 

of O&P services by basic insurance units.27 The 

policymakers of the health system should remove this 

barrier by enacting the necessary regulations. Iranian 

association of orthotics and prosthetics which is the main 

actor in this field is trying hard to convince them of the 

benefits of this policy.    

In the study by Alsancak et al.28 and Ghoseiri et al.,19 the 

highest level of dissatisfaction was related to the 

appearance and esthetic aspects of the device. In the 

mentioned studies some of the participants received upper 

limb orthoses and prostheses. As upper limb orthosis and 

prostheses are more visible, it is logical that the appearance 

and aesthetic aspect of the device be the main concern and 

priority of participants. In the present study, insoles and 

medical shoes accounted for about 83% of the prescribed 

devices. Although desirable appearance is an important 

factor in patients’ adherence to O&P treatments, in the case 

of insoles and footwear, the comfort of the device, its weight, 

the quality of the material, and its effect on reducing 

symptoms may play more decisive roles in patients’ 

satisfaction. Based on the findings of the present study, the 

average satisfaction with the comfort of orthosis was 4.36 ± 

1.14, which is higher than the report of Ghoseiri et al.19 (2.40 

± 1.00). Moreover, in the present study, the mean score of 

pain-free wearing of orthoses was 4.49 ± 1.05, reflecting the 

effectiveness of the devices prescribed in this center. 

However, in Ghoseiri et al.19 and Hoda et al.23 studies, this 

rate was 2.1± 0.9 and 3.39, respectively. In our study, the 

overall satisfaction of the device was 74.00 ±19.80, higher 

than the mentioned two studies (Ghoseiri et al.19: 

46.6±15.2; and Hoda et al.23: 45.94 ± 11.62). However, in 

the research conducted by Bosmans et al.,24 the 

satisfaction rate was 78% among the clients of 15 O & P 

facilities in the Netherlands. Routhier et al.29 only assessed 

satisfaction with the myoelectric prosthesis in 18 patients 

with upper limb amputation which resulted in the satisfaction 

rate of 80%. It should be noted that deformity or specific 

neuromusculoskeletal conditions of clients may cause 

different psychological challenges, affecting their 

satisfaction with orthosis/prosthetic treatments. 

Satisfaction with Service: 

 Concerning service satisfaction, the mean total satisfaction 

score in this study was 72.10 ± 17.68, higher than Hoda et 

al.23 (65.77± 22.00) and Ghoseiri et al.19 (59.70 ± 12.00). 

The highest level of satisfaction was related to the 

politeness and proper respect of the employees of the 

complex with an average value of 4.92 ± 0.57. Similarly, 

Hoda et al.23 and Ghoseiri et al.19 reported this parameter 

with the highest level of satisfaction with respective average 

values of 74.40±4.00 and 3.30±0.70. The lowest level of 

satisfaction in the field of services in the present study was 

related to the coordination of clinic staff with other treatment 

staff with an average value of 1.56 ± 2.11, indicating the 

need for better communication and cooperation between 

rehabilitation physicians, physical therapists, and orthotists 

to achieve a successful rehabilitation treatment. The current 

study also revealed a higher level of satisfaction among the 

users who received services during the past year compared 

to those who received services for more than a year.  

CONCLUSION 

The results of the present study indicated relatively high 

satisfaction with both the quality of orthopedic devices and 

services among patients referred to the O&P center of Iran 

University of Medical Sciences. However, when the costs 

associated with the device and the coordination of clinic 

staff with therapists and physicians were considered the 

satisfaction level declined. Assessment of clients' 

satisfaction, as an approach to obtain their insights, can be 

a prominent part of evidence-based practices. Such 

information could highly contribute to improving the quality 

of services and upgrading the O&P facilities.  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank the orthotics and prosthetics 

department (Iran University of Medical Sciences) especially Ms. 

Fariba Noori for her cooperation. The research team would also like 

to thank all the participants who generously shared their time and 

information. 

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING 

INTERESTS 

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTION 

Ali Baghbanbashi: Conceived the idea, designed the analysis, 

collected the data, contributed to data analysis, contributed to the 

final manuscript 

Behshid Farahmand: Conceived the idea and designed the 

analysis, supervised the project, contributed to data analysis, 

discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript 

Fatemeh Azadinia: Conceived the idea and designed the analysis, 

performed the data analysis, took the lead in writing the manuscript 

Maryam Jalali: Conceived the idea and designed the analysis, 

discussed the results, provided critical feedback and contributed to 

the final manuscript 

SOURCES OF SUPPORT 

The authors would like to thank the Iran University of Medical 

Sciences for their official support of this study. 

ETHICAL APPROVAL 

The present study is descriptive-analytical research whose protocol 

was approved by the ethics committee at Iran University of Medical 

Sciences (IUMC). 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981


 

6 

Baghbanbashi A, Farahmand B, Azadinia F, Jalali M. Evaluation of user’s satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services in orthotics and prosthetics 
center of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.10. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981 

ISSN: 2561-987X 
EVALUATION OF USER’S SATISFACTION WITH ORTHOTIC AND PROSTHETIC DEVICES AND SERVICES  

Baghbanbashi et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
REFERENCES 

1.WHO standards for prosthetics and orthotics [Internet]. World 

Health Organization, 2017; [cited 2022, February 19].  Available 

from:  https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259209 

2.Triennial Performance Report; Deputy for rehabilitation affairs 

[Internet]. State welfare organization of Iran, 2021; [cited 2022 July 

12]. Available from: 

https://media.behzisti.ir/d/2021/10/26/0/137702.pdf 

3.Annual visits of 70,000 people to Red Crescent rehabilitation 

centers/discount up to 50% to those in need [Internet]. Iranian red 

Crescent Society, 2021; [cited 2022 July 12]. Available from: 

http://rcs.ir/news 

4.Peaco A, Halsne E, Hafner BJ. Assessing satisfaction with 

orthotic devices and services: a systematic literature review. J 

Prosthet Orthot. 2011;23(2):95-105. DOI: 10.1097/JPO. 

0b013e318217a0fe 

5.Bahadori M, Ravangard R, Aleviohammadzadeh K. The 

accreditation of hospitals in Iran. Iran J Public Health.  

2015;44(2):295-6.  

6.John J. Patient satisfaction: the impact of past experience. J 

Health Care Mark. 1992;12(3):56. 

7.Hallowell R. The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer 

loyalty, and profitability: an empirical study. Int J Serv Ind. 1996. 

DOI:10.1108/09564239610129931 

8.Cronin Jr JJ, Brady MK, Hult GT. Assessing the effects of quality, 

value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions 

in service environments. J Retail.  2000;76(2):193-218. DOI:  

10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2 

9.Saxton JW. How to increase economic returns and reduce liability 

exposure: Part 1--Patient satisfaction as an economic tool. J Med 

Pract Manage. 2001;17(3):142-4. 

10.Geertzen JH, Gankema HG, Groothoff JW, Dijkstra PU. 

Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities. 

Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26(1):64-71. 

11.Xesfingi S, Vozikis A. Patient satisfaction with the healthcare 

system: Assessing the impact of socio-economic and healthcare 

provision factors. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):1-7. DOI: 

10.1186/s12913-016-1327-4 

12.Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action [Internet]. 

World Health Organization; 2003; [cited 2022, February 19]. 
Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42682 

13.Joseph M, Constant R, Rickloff M, Mezzio A, Valdes K. A survey 

of client experiences with orthotics using the QUEST 2.0. J Hand 

Ther. 2018;31(4):538-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2018.07.002 

14.DeRuyter F. Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do 

we understand the commitment? Disabil rehabilitation. Assist. 

Technol. 1995;7(1):3-8. DOI: 10.1080/10400435.1995.10132246 

15.Ghorbani F, Kamyab M, Azadinia F, Hajiaghaei B. Open-design 

collar vs. conventional Philadelphia collar regarding user 

satisfaction and cervical range of motion in asymptomatic adults. 

Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;95(4):291-9. DOI: 10.1097/PHM. 

0000000000000374 

 

16.Thatipelli S, Arun A, Chung P, Etemadi M, Heller JA, Kwiat D, et 

al. Review of existing brace adherence monitoring methods to 

assess adherence. J Prosthet Orthot. 2016;28(4):126-35. DOI: 

10.1097/JPO.0000000000000106 

17.Barbosa CD, Balp MM, Kulich K, Germain N, Rofail D. A 

literature review to explore the link between treatment satisfaction 

and adherence, compliance, and persistence. Patient Prefer 

Adherence. 2012;6:39. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S24752 

18.Valdes K, Naughton N, Algar L. Linking ICF components to 

outcome measures for orthotic intervention for CMC OA: a 

systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2016;29(4):396-404. DOI: 

10.1016/j.jht.2016.06.001 

19.Ghoseiri K, Bahramian H. User satisfaction with orthotic and 

prosthetic devices and services of a single clinic. Disabil Rehabil.  

2012;34(15):1328-32. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2011.641663 

20.Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User 

Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): 

an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil. 2002;14(3):101-

105. DOI: 10.3233/TAD-2002-14304 

21.Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. Development and psychometric 

evaluation of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience 

Scales (TAPES). Rehabil Psychol. 2000;45(2):130. DOI: 10.1037/ 

0090-5550.45.2.130 

22.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. 

23.Hoda MS, Allami M, Asgari M. Evaluation of users’ satisfaction 

with prosthesis and prosthetic services in Tehran. Iran J War Public 

Health. 2018;10(2):75-83. 

24.Bosmans J, Geertzen J, Dijkstra PU. Consumer satisfaction with 

the services of prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot 

Int. 2009;33(1):69-77. DOI: 10.1080/03093640802403803 

25.Hadadi M, Ghoseiri K, Fardipour S, Kashani RV, Asadi F, 

Asghari A. The Persian version of satisfaction assessment module 

of Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey. Disabil Health J. 

2016;9(1):90-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.08.010 

26.Scoring guide for the orthotics and prosthetics users survey 

[Internet]. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab (The Rehabilitation Institute of 

Chicago); 2017. [cited 2022 July 12]. Available from: 

https://www.sralab.org/sites/default/files/2017-

03/OPUS%20Scoring%20Guide.pdf 

27.Shahabi S, Pardhan S, Shabaninejad H, Teymourlouy AA, 

Tabrizi R, Lankarani KB. Toward good governance for the 

prosthetics and orthotics sector in Iran: Evidence from a qualitative 

study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2022;10-97. DOI: 10.1097/PXR. 

0000000000000102 

28.Alsancak SE. Splint satisfaction in the treatment of traumatic 

radial nerve injuries. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27(2):139-45. DOI: 

10.1080/03093640308726670 

29.Routhier F, Vincent C, Morissette MJ, Desaulniers L. Clinical 

results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric 

prosthesis fitting at the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute. Prosthet 

Orthot Int. 2001;25(2):119-31. DOI: 10.1080/03093640108726585 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37981
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259209
https://media.behzisti.ir/d/2021/10/26/0/137702.pdf
http://rcs.ir/news
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42682
https://www.sralab.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/OPUS%20Scoring%20Guide.pdf
https://www.sralab.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/OPUS%20Scoring%20Guide.pdf

