You are not logged in. Press here to login.


List volumes - List articles in this issue

Original report

Malawian prosthetic and orthotic users’ mobility and satisfaction with their lower limb assistive device

doi: 10.2340/16501977-1117

Open access


OBJECTIVE: To investigate patients’ mobility and satisfaction with their lower limb prosthetic or orthotic device and related service delivery in Malawi and to compare groups of patients regarding type and level of device and demographics.
METHODS: Questionnaires were used to collect self-report data from 83 patients.
RESULTS: Ninety percent of prostheses or orthoses were in use by patients, but approximately half of these needed repair. Thirty-nine percent reported pain when using their assistive device. The majority of patients were able to rise from a chair (77%), move around the home (80%), walk on uneven ground (59%) and travel by bus or car (56%). However, patients had difficulties walking up and down hills (78%) and stairs (60%). In general, patients were quite satisfied with their assistive device (mean of 3.9 out of 5) and very satisfied with the service provided (mean of 4.4 out of 5). Access to repairs and servicing were rated as most important, followed by durability and follow-up services. Lack of finances to pay for transport was a barrier to accessing the prosthetic and orthotic centre.
CONCLUSION: Patients were satisfied with the assistive device and service received, despite reporting pain associated with use of the device and difficulties ambulating on challenging surfaces.


Lina Magnusson, Gerd Ahlström, Nerrolyn Ramstrand, Eleonor I. Fransson
Department of Rehabilitation, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University and Swedish Institute for Disability Research, P.O. Box 1026, SE–551 11 Jönköping, Sweden. E-mail:


1. Jensen JS, Nilsen R, Zeffer J. Quality benchmark for trans-tibial prostheses in low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005; 29: 53–58.

2. Brakel WH, Poetsma PA, Tam PT, Verhoeff T. User satisfaction and use of prostheses in ICRC’s spesial found for the disabled project in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Disabil Rehabil J 2010; 21: 70–91.

3. Matsen SL. A closer look at amputees in Vietnamn: a field survey of Vietnamese using prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int 1999; 23: 93–101.

4. Peethambaran A. The relationship between performance, satisfaction, and well being for patients using anterior and posterior design knee-ankle-foot-orthosis. J Prosthet Orthot 2000; 12: 33–45.

5. Ghoseiri K, Bahramian H. User satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices and services of a single clinic. Disabil Rehabil 2012; 34: 1328–1332.

6. Geertzen JHB, Gankema HGJ, Groothoff JW, Dijkstra PU. Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002; 26: 64–71.

7. Pezzin L, Dillingham TR, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim P, Rossbach P. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 723–729.

8. Bosmans J, Geertzen J, Dijkstra PU. Consumer satisfaction with the services of prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot Int 2009; 33: 69–77.

9. Karmarkar AM, Collins DM, Wichman T, Franklin A, Fitzgerald SG, Dicianno BE, et al. Prosthesis and wheelchair use in veterans with lower-limb amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009; 46: 567–576.

10. Berke GM, Fergason J, Milani JR, Hattingh J, McDowell M, Nguyen V, et al. Comparison of satisfaction with current prosthetic care in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts with major traumatic limb loss. J Rehabil Res Dev 2010; 47: 361–372.

11. World Health Organization. Country statistics, Malawi, Global Health Observatory [Internet] 2009. [cited 2013 February 10]; Avalible from:

12. Malawi Ministry of Health and Population. To the year 2020: a vision for the health sector in Malawi. Lilongwe: Ministry of Health and Population Malawi; 1999.

13. Loeb ME, Eide AH. Living conditons among people with activity limitations in Malawi. A national representative study. Trondheim: SINTEF Health Research; 2004.

14. Borg J. Assistive technology, human rights and poverty in developing countries. Malmö: Lund University; 2011.

15. Andrysek J. Lower-limb prosthetic technologies in the developing world: a review of literature from 1994–2010. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010; 34: 378–398.

16. Borg J, Lindström A, Larsson S. Assistive technology in developing countries: a review from the perspective of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011; 35: 20–29.

17. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2012 July 13]. Available from:

18. Wazakili M, Nyirenda R, Nilsen R, Hertzberg A. Review of orthopeadic services in Malawi. Lilongwe: Royal Norwegian Embassy; 2004.

19. World Health Organizarion International Society of Prosthetics and Orthotics. Guidelines for training personnel in developing countries for prosthetics and orthotics services. [Internet] Geneva: WHO; 2005. Available from:

20. Demers R, Weiss-Lambrou B, Bernadette S. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology QUEST version 2.0 an outcome measure for assistive technology device. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Persons and Technology; 2000.

21. Gauthier- Gagon C, Grise MC. Tools for outcome measurement in lower limb amputee rehabilitation. Montreal: Universite de Montreal; 2001.

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: 191–206.

23. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Anorln DL, Wolfson C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 21–30.

24. Wessels RD, De Witte LP. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 267–272.

25. Samuelsson K, Wressle E. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: an important element in the rehabilitation process. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30: 551–558.

26. Chan SC, Chan AP. User satisfaction, community participation and quality of life among Chinese wheelchair users with spinal cord injury: a preliminary study. Occup Ther Int 2007; 14: 123–143.

27. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments [Internet]. Geneva; 2007 [cited 2012 March 26]; Available from:

28. Neuendorf KA. The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications; 2001.

29. Kark L, Simmons A. Patients satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: the role of gait deviation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011; 35: 225–233.

30. Radtka SA, Oliveira GB, Lindstrom KE, Borders MD. The kinematic and kinetic effects of solid, hinged, and no ankle–foot orthoses on stair locomotion in healthy adults. Gait Posture 2006; 24: 211–218.

31. Alimusaj M, Fradet L, Braatz F, Gerner HJ, Wolf SI. Kinematics and kinetics with an adaptive ankle foot system during stair ambulation of transtibial amputees. Gait Posture 2009; 30: 356–363.

32. Sin SW, Cowe DHK, Cheng JCY. Significance of non -level walking on transtibial prosthesis fitting with particular reference to the effects of anterior-posterior alignment. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001; 38: 1–6.

33. Gregory CP. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann 1983; 6: 185–210.

34. Braathen SH, Kvam MM. “Can anything good come out of this mouth? Females experiences of disability in Malawi.” Disabil Soc 2008; 23: 461–474.

Related articles

There are no related articles.



Full text



There is no supplementary for this article.

Related articles

Click here to show related articles

Print information

Volume 45, Issue 4

DOI: 10.2340/16501977-1117

Pages: 385-391

View at PubMed