Studies which have examined the effects of ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) on children with cerebral palsy (CP) often report insufficient detail about the participants, devices and testing protocols. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the level and quality of detail reported about these factors in order to generate best practice guidelines for reporting of future studies. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify studies which examined any outcome measure relating to AFO use in children with CP. A customized checklist was developed for data extraction and quality assessment. There was substantial variability in the level and quality of detail reported across the 41-paper yield. Many papers reported insufficient detail to allow synthesis of outcomes across studies. The findings of this review have been used to generate guidelines for best practice of reporting for AFO intervention studies. It is important to ensure homogeneity of gait pattern in a subject sample or to subdivide a sample to investigate the possibility that heterogeneity affected results. It is also important to describe the orthosis in sufficient detail that the device can be accurately replicated because differences in designs have been shown to affect outcomes. These guidelines will help researchers provide more systematic and detailed reports and thereby permit future reviewers to more accurately assess both the reporting and quality of orthotic interventions, and will facilitate synthesis of literature to enhance the evidence base.

No abstract

Background By 2050, the global demand for orthotic and prosthetic services is expected to double. Unfortunately, the orthotic/prosthetic workforce is not well placed to meet this growing demand. Strengthening the regulation of orthotist/prosthetists will be key to meeting future workforce demands, however little is known about the extent of orthotist/prosthetist regulation nor the mechanisms through which regulation could best be strengthened. Fortunately, a number of allied health professions have international-level regulatory support that may serve as a model to strengthen regulation of the orthotic/prosthetic profession. The aims of this study were to describe the national-level regulation of orthotist/prosthetists globally, and the international-level regulatory support provided to allied health professions. Method Two environmental scans benchmarked the national-level regulation of the orthotist/prosthetist workforce, and the regulatory support provided by international allied health professional bodies using a set of nine core practitioner standards (core standards) including: Minimum Training/Education, Entry-level Competency Standards, Scope of Practice, Code of Conduct and/or Ethics, Course Accreditation, Continuing Professional Development, Language Standard, Recency of Practice, and Return-to-Practice. Each identified country was categorised by income status (i.e. High-, Upper-Middle-, Lower-Middle-, and Low-Income countries). Results Some degree of regulation of the orthotist/prosthetist workforce was identified in 30 (15%) of the world’s 197 countries. All core standards were present in 6 of these countries. Countries of higher economic status had more core standards in place than countries of lower economic status. International-level professional bodies were identified for 14 of 20 allied health professions. International bodies for the physical therapy (8 core standards) and occupational therapy (5 core standards) professions provided regulatory support to help national associations meet most of the core standards. Conclusion Given the small proportion of countries that have national practitioner regulatory standards in place, most orthotist/prosthetists are working under little-to-no regulation. This presents an opportunity to develop rigorous national-level regulation that can support workforce growth to meet future workforce demands. Given the financial and expertise barriers that hinder the development of a more regulated orthotist/prosthetist workforce, particularly for Low- and Lower-Middle-Income countries, we recommend the establishment of an international professional body with the express purpose to support national-level regulation of orthotist/prosthetists, and thereby build the regulatory capacity of national orthotic/prosthetic associations.

Objective Health workforce data are vital to inform initiatives to meet the future healthcare needs of our society, but there are currently no data describing the Australian orthotic and prosthetic workforce. The aim of the present study was to describe demographic changes in the Australian orthotic and prosthetic workforce from 2007 to 2012. Methods In the present retrospective time series study, data from the Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association member database were analysed for trends from 2007 to 2012. Data describing the absolute number of practitioners, the number of practitioners per 100000 population, age, gender, state or territory of residence and service location (i.e. metropolitan, regional and remote) were analysed for significant changes over time using linear regression models. Results Although the number of orthotist/prosthetists in Australia increased (P=0.013), the number of orthotist/prosthetists per 100000 population remained unchanged (P=0.054). The workforce became younger (P=0.004) and more female (P=0.005). Only Victoria saw an increase in the proportion of orthotist/prosthetists in regional and remote areas. There was considerable state-to-state variation. Only Victoria (P=0.01) and Tasmania (P=0.003) saw an increase in the number of orthotist/prosthetists per 100000 population. Conclusions The orthotic and prosthetic workforce has increased proportionately to Australia's population growth, become younger and more female. The proportion of practitioners in regional and remote areas has remained unchanged. These data can help inform workforce initiatives to increase the number of orthotist/prosthetists relative to the Australian population and make the services of orthotist/prosthetists more accessible to Australians in regional and remote areas. What is known about the topic? Currently, there are no demographic data describing changes in the Australian orthotic and prosthetic workforce over time. These data are vital to inform initiatives to increase the size of the workforce, locate practitioners where health services are most needed and thereby plan to meet the future health care needs of our society. What does this paper add? This paper describes changes in the Australian orthotic and prosthetic workforce, where previously these data have not been available as part of federal initiatives to plan for future workforce needs. What are the implications for practitioners? Demographic data describing changes in the orthotic and prosthetic workforce are needed to inform workforce initiatives that improve access in regional and remote Australia, and retain a younger and more female workforce.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Previous Australian workforce analyses revealed a small orthotist/prosthetist workforce with a low number of practitioners per 100,000 Australians. In recent years, initiatives were implemented to increase relative workforce size, including a government-led change in immigration policy to facilitate entry of experienced internationally trained orthotist/prosthetists into the Australian workforce. Given these changes, this project aimed to compare demographics of the orthotist/prosthetist workforce in Australia and each state/territory between 2007, 2012 and 2019. Methods This quasi-experiment analysed data from the Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) database of certified orthotist/prosthetists, to compare changes in the absolute number of practitioners and the number of practitioners per 100,000 population, as well as practitioner age, gender and service location (i.e., metropolitan, regional/remote) across three time points, with a breakdown by each Australian state and territory. Results Between 2007 and 2019, the number of orthotist/prosthetists per 100,000 population increased 90%. Average age reduced significantly between 2007 (41.5 years) and 2019 (35 years) (p = 0.001). While the proportion of female practitioners increased significantly between 2007 (30%) and 2019 (49%), and between 2012 (38%) and 2019 (49%) (p < 0.05); only 22% of the female workforce is over 40 years of age. The proportion of practitioners servicing a regional/remote location did not change over time (range 13–14%). Conclusions Between 2007 and 2019, the national orthotist/prosthetist workforce increased at a rate that exceeded Australia’s population growth, became younger, and more female. However, the number of practitioners per 100,000 population remains below international recommendations; particularly in states outside of Victoria and Tasmania, and in regional/remote areas. In addition, low numbers of mid-late career female practitioners suggest challenges to retention of this particular cohort. These data can help inform workforce initiatives to retain a younger and more female workforce, and improve access to orthotic/prosthetic services.

No abstract