Prolonged field care is increasingly important in military operations, where austere environments and delayed medical evacuations necessitate extended injury management. Tibia and fibula fractures are common, survivable battlefield injuries that demand such care. Current treatment options involve simple splints, which require the injured Service member to be carried on a litter, and exoskeletons, which are not suited for use in combat environments. The Intrepid Battlefield Exoskeleton (IBEX) was developed to address this critical gap in battlefield trauma care by stabilizing lower leg fractures and enabling independent mobility in prolonged care scenarios. This study evaluated the usability of two IBEX prototypes through sequential laboratory and field testing under two user conditions: medic and casualty. In laboratory testing, 20 participants completed a series of functional tasks with and without the IBEX and provided quantitative usability ratings and qualitative feedback via self-report measures and interviews. In field testing, 12 participants used the IBEX during a simulated mass casualty event and completed the same usability assessments. Quantitative results indicated high overall user satisfaction. Thematic analysis of qualitative feedback revealed recurring comments on usability, portability, comfort, security, and durability. Overall, results indicated moderate usability in both environments, with room to improve ease of fitting and adjustability. Findings highlight the value of a mixed-methods approach to device evaluation and underscore the importance of iterative design and testing. Ongoing work will compare the IBEX with the current standard of care and further refine the design for operational use.

Research on differences between public, for-profit, and nonprofit providers of welfare services has provided mixed findings, depending on welfare state arrangement, regulation, and service area. This paper’s objective is to study the differences between public, nonprofit (cooperatives and other nonprofits), and for-profit welfare providers from the perspective of the users in the tightly regulated Scandinavian context. We ask how the users perceive the providers from different sectors differently and how this variation can be explained. The study relies on a large-scale survey carried out in 2015 in the city of Oslo, Norway. From the survey, we identify the two main results. First, despite limited differences, users of nonprofit kindergartens are generally more satisfied than users of for-profit and public kindergartens. Second, an important explanation for variations in user satisfaction among kindergartens is identified in a pocket of regulatory leniency: the quality of food service. This is the only expense that varies among kindergartens in Norway. These results indicate that more lenient regulations could potentially increase provider distinctiveness. Based on the existing literature, we discuss why nonprofit providers seem to fare better in the minds of users than public and for-profit providers.