Assessing Feasibility and Readiness for 3D Printing Integration in Prosthetics and Orthotics: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology with the potential to transform prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) education and clinical practice by enabling faster, more customized, and cost-effective device production. However, its adoption of routine P&O practice remains limited, particularly in the Middle East, and little is known about practitioners’ readiness to implement this technology. Aim: To evaluate the readiness for and acceptance of integrating 3D printing into P&O practice using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a UTAUT-based questionnaire distributed through professional networks and social media. A total of 104 participants, including P&O professionals and final-year P&O students from Jordan, completed the survey. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors influencing the behavioral intention to adopt 3D printing technology. Results: Most participants were familiar with the concept of 3D printing in P&O (62.5%), whereas only 12.5% reported that their workplace currently uses 3D printing for prosthetic or orthotic design or fabrication. Performance Expectancy (3.38 ± 0.66) and Effort Expectancy (3.40 ± 0.70) received moderately positive ratings, while Facilitating Conditions had the lowest mean score (2.58 ± 0.84), indicating limited organizational readiness. Behavioral Intention was moderate (3.02 ± 0.99). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that Performance Expectancy (β = 0.518, p < 0.001) was the strongest significant predictor of Behavioral Intention, while Facilitating Conditions (β = 0.215, p = 0.008) was also a significant predictor. The model explained 45.5% of the variance in Behavioral Intention (R2 = 0.455). The most frequently reported barriers were limited technical expertise, lack of organizational priority, and inadequate access to 3D printing equipment and materials. Participants identified training in computer-aided design (CAD) and improved access to digital manufacturing technologies as key implementation needs. Conclusions: P&O professionals and students demonstrated positive attitudes toward 3D printing and a willingness to adopt the technology; however, implementation remains constrained by inadequate infrastructure, limited technical support, insufficient training opportunities, and organizational barriers. Strengthening facilitating conditions through investment in digital infrastructure, curriculum integration, workforce training, and institutional support is likely to accelerate the adoption of 3D printing in P&O education and clinical practice.