景與目的：本研究目的在研發失功能者使用輔具現況調查之問卷，并報告初測結果 方法：本研究首先設計先能者輔具使用現況調查問卷，經德非拉專家檢測效度後完成初稿。問卷包括輔具使用種類、取得輔具過程之困難、滿意度與追蹤服務等共23題。初測樣本為方便取樣微得失能者，共計以面訪及電防完成148份問卷。結果：148位受傷者平均42.9±20.8歲，有七位并未使用輔具，其余141位受訪者共使用288項輔具、完成訪問時間約為15分鍾。使用最多的輔具項目為輪椅（43人）、拐杖（30人）及電動輪椅（24人）。購買時曾經過治療師處方的占26.2%、有治療師給于教導使用的占34.8%。在購買輔具時主要遇到的困難是經費問題(32.3%)與申請輔具程序問題(17.7%)。以卡方檢定比較發現生活類與復健類輔具在購買方式、專業人員介入、量身與否等項目有顯著差异(p<0.01)。以曼一惠特尼U分析則發現生活類與復健類輔具使用者在方便性、減輕負擔的程度、滿意度等項目亦有顯著差异(p<0.05)。結論：建議繼續改善輔具之取得流程、建立輔具評估與追蹤制度，以減少輔具之使用不適性，治療師應更積極參與輔具之相關服務，尤其是生活類輔具。

Purpose: This study reports the development of an assistive device usage survey questionnaire for disabled users and the results of a pilot test. Methods: The assistive device usage survey questionnaire for disabled users were developed based on literature review and expert group meetings. The validity of the questionnaire was tested by the semi-Delphi technique with 16 experts in related fields. The content of the questionnaire included 23 questions covering questions such as types of devices, process and difficulty encountered during acquiring of the device, satisfaction with the device, follow-up and professional involvement in the process. The pilot test was conducted on 148 subjects with disability sampled by convenience. The subjects were recruited in an assistive device fair and from rehabilitation wards, assistive device centers, and disability patient associations. The questionnaire was administered by face-to-face interview if possible. For subjects unable to leave home, telephone interview was administered. Results: The average age of the subjects was 42.9 (range 4-88) years. Seven subjects did not use any assistive device. The remaining 141 subjects used a total of 288 devices, averaging 2.04 devices per person. The average time to complete a questionnaire was 15 minutes. Wheelchairs, canes and electric wheelchairs were most commonly used in this sample of subjects. Among them, 26.2% of users received suggestions from therapists regarding the prescription of the assistive devices and 34.8% of users received instructions regarding the proper use of devices from therapists. The main problems encountered while obtaining the devices were cost (32.3%) and reimbursement process (17.7%). Chi-square test revealed that devices for daily living were significantly different from rehabilitative devices in terms of purchase process, professional involvement and custom-made proportion (p<0.01) Mann-Whitney U test revealed that devices for daily living were significantly different from rehabilitative devices in terms of convenience, care load reduction, and satisfaction (p<0.05). Conclusions: It is suggested that the process of reimbursement of assistive devices be redesigned to reduce the difficulty encountered by the assistive device users and establish the follow-up system to improve proper use of assistive devices. Therapists should devote more in the assistive device related services, especially in the arena of daily living assistive devices.