An investigation into the relationship between paracycling athletes and their prosthetics technology: a proposed design framework

Authors: Dyer, B.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31510/

Journal: Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Dyer, B.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31510/

Journal: Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol

Volume: 15

Issue: 2

Pages: 166-172

eISSN: 1748-3115

DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1549275

Objective: Product attachment has been stated as an emotional relationship an end-user may develop with a tangible product or artefact. The objective of this study is to investigate this relationship with athletes who possess limb absence and utilise assistive sports technology competitively.Method: Five elite paracyclists were surveyed using a modified 31 question product attachment survey. The survey comprised the ability to capture both closed-ended and open-ended data. The survey design itself was derived from three previously validated product relationship questionnaires.Results: Four elite athletes with limb absence did not provide any firm evidence or indication to support the concept of a non-physical relationship with their prosthetic device. However, some respondents had (or wished) to incorporate some form of aesthetic-based prosthetic personalisation or customisation, as long as this did not impact on the prostheses functional performance. Furthermore, a thematic analysis of the participant's responses yielded a four-point assistive technology design philosophy framework. The emerging thematic areas were 1) The identification of the factors that influence performance in the athletes chosen sport; 2) To consider an 'appearance follows performance' approach; 3) To conduct sports specific trials of the prosthetic limb; and 4) To identify any need for prostheses decorative personalisation.Conclusions: The survey revealed some anecdotes of a sports technology to user relationship but this will require further exploration with different and larger sample populations. Use of the proposed four-point framework may help inform practitioners of what considerations could provide greater end-user satisfaction when designing and developing specialised prosthetic limbs for elite-level sport.Implications for rehabilitationWhilst the formal characteristics of product attachment were not broadly identified in this study, some indications may give credence for prosthetists to consider an "appearance follows performance" approach to sports prostheses design. This may improve end-user satisfaction with their assistive technology.The inclusion of prosthetic post-manufacture decoration and personalization would seem to be desirable to the end-user.By adopting the feedback given in this study, undertaking trials conducted at a race-specific intensity of the athlete end-user may reduce the need to perform post-manufacture ad-hoc prostheses modifications.

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Dyer, B.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31510/

Journal: Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volume: 15

Issue: 2

Pages: 166-172

eISSN: 1748-3115

ISSN: 1748-3107

DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1549275

© 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Objective: Product attachment has been stated as an emotional relationship an end-user may develop with a tangible product or artefact. The objective of this study is to investigate this relationship with athletes who possess limb absence and utilise assistive sports technology competitively. Method: Five elite paracyclists were surveyed using a modified 31 question product attachment survey. The survey comprised the ability to capture both closed-ended and open-ended data. The survey design itself was derived from three previously validated product relationship questionnaires. Results: Four elite athletes with limb absence did not provide any firm evidence or indication to support the concept of a non-physical relationship with their prosthetic device. However, some respondents had (or wished) to incorporate some form of aesthetic-based prosthetic personalisation or customisation, as long as this did not impact on the prostheses functional performance. Furthermore, a thematic analysis of the participant's responses yielded a four-point assistive technology design philosophy framework. The emerging thematic areas were 1) The identification of the factors that influence performance in the athletes chosen sport; 2) To consider an ‘appearance follows performance’ approach; 3) To conduct sports specific trials of the prosthetic limb; and 4) To identify any need for prostheses decorative personalisation. Conclusions: The survey revealed some anecdotes of a sports technology to user relationship but this will require further exploration with different and larger sample populations. Use of the proposed four-point framework may help inform practitioners of what considerations could provide greater end-user satisfaction when designing and developing specialised prosthetic limbs for elite-level sport.Implications for rehabilitation Whilst the formal characteristics of product attachment were not broadly identified in this study, some indications may give credence for prosthetists to consider an “appearance follows performance” approach to sports prostheses design. This may improve end-user satisfaction with their assistive technology. The inclusion of prosthetic post-manufacture decoration and personalization would seem to be desirable to the end-user. By adopting the feedback given in this study, undertaking trials conducted at a race-specific intensity of the athlete end-user may reduce the need to perform post-manufacture ad-hoc prostheses modifications.

This data was imported from Web of Science (Lite):

Authors: Dyer, B.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31510/

Journal: DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION-ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Volume: 15

Issue: 2

Pages: 166-172

eISSN: 1748-3115

ISSN: 1748-3107

DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1549275

The data on this page was last updated at 05:17 on May 25, 2020.