## 3 Results
### Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology and Service Results of the QUEST  
The overall satisfaction with the assistive device(s) including, according to the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0, [11]), variables of effectiveness, comfort, ease of use, durability, safety, adjustments, weight, and dimensions  
Figure 3: Type and number of additional devices before and after amputation.  
Figure 2: Prosthesis wearing time per day.  
(see Figure 4), was 3.9 and 4.3 for service (repairs/servicing, follow-up services, professional service, and service delivery), summarizing to an overall satisfaction of 4.1.  
More than 50% were quite satisfied (4) or even very satisfied (5) with their assistive device(s). In particular, adjustments were satisfactory for most of the amputees (N = 20, \(\pm\)1.1). The dimensions and ease of use were rated as \"very satisfied\" by 48% of patients (N = 13) (\(\pm\)0.9; \(\pm\)1.2). Less than one-third were moderately satisfied. Major points of criticism were high weight (N = 9) (\(\pm\)0.94) or the comfort (N = 8) (\(\pm\)0.99). Five patients expressed high dissatisfaction with their assistive device. These complained about the weight, comfort, and also the effectiveness of the devices, among other issues. Therefore, they rated the received assistive devices with an average grade ranging from 2.6 (\(\pm\)0.5) to 1.5 (\(\pm\)0.9). Due to wound healing disorders, one patient was provided with a simple wheelchair for a long time, which did not offer satisfactory mobility.  
An overall high satisfaction was reported for the services, including follow-up services and the professional service of the entire rehabilitation team. A total of 85% (N = 23) were fairly or very satisfied with the services. It should be noted that one patient did not participate in this part of the survey and one patient provided incomplete information. The amputees who were rather dissatisfied with the service delivery had to wait to be fitted between a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 28 weeks. Surprisingly, this subgroup rated the professional service (N = 14) and follow-up services (N = 12) very high (4 and 5). Overall, the rating of the service by all patients was about 4.3 out of a possible 5 points. Three patients stated that they had had moved to another medical supply store because of their unreliability (see Figure 5).  
Figure 4: Satisfaction using a 5-point Likert scale with the assistive technology including following variables: Effectiveness, comfort, ease of use, durability, safety, adjustments, weight, and dimensions, QUEST 2.0 [11].  
The adjustment ability of the assistive devices was among the most important items for about half (N = 12) of the amputees when they were asked to weigh the importance, following professional service (N = 11), safety (N = 10), and effectiveness of the assistive devices (N = 9), for at least 36%. However, for eight patients, the dimensions of the assistive devices (N = 2) and the weight and durability (N = 3 each) were also of primary importance. Interestingly, we could observe concordance, as the amputees with a higher overall dissatisfaction weighted the items they were not satisfied with conclusively as important, which might show their capacity for differentiation within the whole supply chain.  
During the telephone call interviews, the majority of amputees commented on being extremely satisfied with the clinical care and the communication between the hospital and the medical supply stores to ensure smooth and prompt care. Thus, the delay was mainly restricted by the wound healing problems (N = 8).