This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm Linda Resnik, PT, PhD; Shana Lieberman Klinger, MA; Katherine Etter, MS
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Aim – Summarize feedback from VA subjects and clinicians gathered during VA optimization study of DEKA Arm (second-generation [gen 2] and third-generation [gen 3] prototypes). Relevance – DEKA used feedback from VA optimization study to refine gen 2 prototype.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Method 33 unique subjects participated in VA evaluation (26 for gen 2, 13 for gen 3, and 5 for both). Subject data were gathered through structured and open-ended surveys and audio- and videotaped sessions. Study prosthetists and therapists provided ongoing feedback and completed surveys at end of each subject’s protocol.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Results 11 categories of feedback were identified: – Weight. – Cosmesis. – Hand grips. – Wrist design. – Elbow design. – End-point control. – Foot controls. – Batteries and chargers. – Visual notifications. – Tactor. – Socket features.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Conclusion Final feedback on gen 3 was generally positive, particularly regarding improvements in wrist design, visual notifications, foot controls, end- point control, and cosmesis. Additional refinements to make device lighter in weight, eliminate external wires and cables, and eliminate external battery may further enhance its perceived usability and acceptability.