Upper extremity splinting is a popular treatment method for a range of conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis. The intent of this treatment approach is multifaceted, but fundamentally, the provision of tools to enable and encourage patients to carry out everyday activities and to improve their quality of life is paramount. However, the aesthetic and functional limitations of wrist immobilisation splints demonstrate various weaknesses in terms of wear duration and frequency. Patient compliance is often compromised due to a number of factors, including the perceived stigma associated with assistive devices. Additive Manufacturing (AM) has proved its worth in a number of applications relating to the design of assistive devices; builds of complex, bespoke fitting geometries make AM an ideal fabrication method for upper extremity splints. However, recent advances in system technology to enable multi-material builds have been limited in this field, and a distinct need for a specialised three-dimensional (3D) Computer Aided Design (CAD) software approach is required to allow therapists to design splints for AM. Furthermore, the intent to keep practising therapists at the forefront of splint prescription is of utmost importance. This research proposes a digitised splinting approach, specifically through development of a 3D CAD software strategy to allow therapists to capture their design intent without compromising creativity. Furthermore, the approach proposes the exploration of AM build capabilities by allowing the integration of more creative features, such as aesthetically pleasing lattice structures for increased skin ventilation. The approach also proposes the integration of multiple materials to replicate and improve upon current splint design and fabrication practises. The approach therefore explores an exciting new paradigm for upper extremity splinting, the driving characteristics of which have not been proposed before as a collective medium. This research describes the feasibility of capturing therapists design intent in a 3D CAD virtual environment, whilst capturing therapists opinions of the approach with suggestions for future research and development. Results concluded that therapists were excited by the proposed transition in AM splinting, but that significant development is required elsewhere to establish a supporting infrastructure in order to make the approach a viable option in future upper extremity splinting.

Background: Several self-report measures exist that target different aspects of outcomes for hearing aid use. Currently, no comprehensive questionnaire specifically assesses factors that may be important for differentiating outcomes pertaining to hearing aid style. Purpose: The goal of this work was to develop the Style Preference Survey (SPS), a questionnaire aimed at outcomes associated with hearing aid style differences. Two experiments were conducted. After initial item development, Experiment 1 was conducted to refine the items and to determine its psychometric properties. Experiment 2 was designed to cross-validate the findings from the initial experiment. Research Design: An observational design was used in both experiments. Study Sample: Participants who wore traditional, custom-fitted (TC) or open-canal (OC) style hearing aids from 3 mo to 3 yr completed the initial experiment. One-hundred and eighty-four binaural hearing aid users (120 of whom wore TC hearing aids and 64 of whom wore OC hearing aids) participated. A new sample of TC and OC users (n 5 185) participated in the cross-validation experiment. Data Collection and Analysis: Currently available self-report measures were reviewed to identify items that might differentiate between hearing aid styles, particularly preference for OC versus TC hearing aid styles. A total of 15 items were selected and modified from available self-report measures. An additional 55 items were developed through consensus of six audiologists for the initial version of the SPS. In the first experiment, the initial SPS version was mailed to 550 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 184 completed the SPS. Approximately three weeks later, a subset of participants (n 5 83) completed the SPS a second time. Basic analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SPS including subscale structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Based on the results of Experiment 1, the SPS was revised. A cross-validation experiment was then conducted using the revised version of the SPS to confirm the subscale structure, internal consistency, and responsiveness of the questionnaire in a new sample of participants Results: The final factor analysis led to the ultimate version of the SPS, which had a total of 35 items encompassing five subscales: (1) Feedback, (2) Occlusion/Own Voice Effects, (3) Localization, (4) Fit, Comfort, and Cosmetics, and (5) Ease of Use. The internal consistency of the total SPS (Cronbach'sa5 .92) and of the subscales (each Cronbach'sa..75) was high. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) showed that the test-retest reliability of the total SPS (ICC5.93) and of the subscales (each ICC..80) also was high. TC hearing aid users had significantly poorer outcomes than OC hearing aid users on 4 of the 5 subscales, suggesting that the SPS largely is responsive to factors related to style-specific differences. Conclusions: The results suggest that the SPS has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable measure of outcomes related to style-specific, hearing aid preference.

Background: Several self-report measures exist that target different aspects of outcomes for hearing aid use. Currently, no comprehensive questionnaire specifically assesses factors that may be important for differentiating outcomes pertaining to hearing aid style. Purpose: The goal of this work was to develop the Style Preference Survey (SPS), a questionnaire aimed at outcomes associated with hearing aid style differences. Two experiments were conducted. After initial item development, Experiment 1 was conducted to refine the items and to determine its psychometric properties. Experiment 2 was designed to cross-validate the findings from the initial experiment. Research Design: An observational design was used in both experiments. Study Sample: Participants who wore traditional, custom-fitted (TC) or open-canal (OC) style hearing aids from 3 mo to 3 yr completed the initial experiment. One-hundred and eighty-four binaural hearing aid users (120 of whom wore TC hearing aids and 64 of whom wore OC hearing aids) participated. A new sample of TC and OC users (n 5 185) participated in the cross-validation experiment. Data Collection and Analysis: Currently available self-report measures were reviewed to identify items that might differentiate between hearing aid styles, particularly preference for OC versus TC hearing aid styles. A total of 15 items were selected and modified from available self-report measures. An additional 55 items were developed through consensus of six audiologists for the initial version of the SPS. In the first experiment, the initial SPS version was mailed to 550 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 184 completed the SPS. Approximately three weeks later, a subset of participants (n 5 83) completed the SPS a second time. Basic analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SPS including subscale structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Based on the results of Experiment 1, the SPS was revised. A cross-validation experiment was then conducted using the revised version of the SPS to confirm the subscale structure, internal consistency, and responsiveness of the questionnaire in a new sample of participants Results: The final factor analysis led to the ultimate version of the SPS, which had a total of 35 items encompassing five subscales: (1) Feedback, (2) Occlusion/Own Voice Effects, (3) Localization, (4) Fit, Comfort, and Cosmetics, and (5) Ease of Use. The internal consistency of the total SPS (Cronbach'sa5 .92) and of the subscales (each Cronbach'sa..75) was high. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) showed that the test-retest reliability of the total SPS (ICC5.93) and of the subscales (each ICC..80) also was high. TC hearing aid users had significantly poorer outcomes than OC hearing aid users on 4 of the 5 subscales, suggesting that the SPS largely is responsive to factors related to style-specific differences. Conclusions: The results suggest that the SPS has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable measure of outcomes related to style-specific, hearing aid preference.