THE USE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY OUTCOMES IN REHABILITATION INTERVENTIONS FOR LOWER LIMB AMPUTEES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Interventions which have focused on improving the physical activity of individuals with lower limb amputation can be mostly categorized into behavioural-based and prosthetic-based interventions. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of these interventions, and to identify the key gaps in research in this field. METHODOLOGY: The databases of Scopus, Pubmed, Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched between September and December of 2019 for articles relating to physical activity, amputees and interventions. Articles were assessed quantitively based on internal validity, external validity and intervention intensity. FINDINGS: Sixteen articles (5 behavioural, 11 prosthetic) were assessed. Both approaches had comparable methodological quality and mixed efficacy for producing a significant change in physical activity outcomes. Almost all interventions used a simplistic measurement of activity as their outcome. CONCLUSIONS: There is an insufficient amount of studies to assess the overall efficacy of behavioural interventions in regard to how they impact on physical activity behaviour. However, the increase of quality of the methodology in the more recent studies could indicate that future interventions will retain similar levels of quality. Prosthetic interventions have shown no major improvement in efficacy compared to similar reviews and may need to utilise more advanced prosthetic components to attain significant changes in physical activity. Activity outcomes should expand into more complex activity measurements to properly understand the physical activity profile of people with lower limb amputation. Layman’s Abstract: The purpose of this review was to identify original research which tried to improve the physical activity behaviours of individuals with lower extremity amputation. Through multiple databases, the review article identified a mixture of 5 behavioural and 11 prosthetic-based interventions which aligned with the search criteria of the review. The behavioural-based interventions used behavioural change techniques controlled by healthcare professionals to try and promote a change in physical activity behaviours. The prosthetic-based interventions employed a prosthetic component, with the intention being that if the prosthetic component had superior design, the individual would feel more encouraged to be physically active. This review article concludes that, prosthetic interventions do not appear to have a consistent significant impact on the physical activity behaviours, and though behavioural interventions also had mixed efficacy, there were not enough interventions of their design to make a conclusive statement. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/33931/26330 How To Cite: Jamieson A.G., Murray L., Buis A. The use of physical activity outcomes in rehabilitation interventions for lower limb amputees: A systematic review. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2020;Volume3, Issue1, No.2. https://doi.org/ 10.33137/cpoj.v3i1.33931 Corresponding Author: Dr. Arjan Buis,Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Wolfson Centre, 106 Rottenrow, Glasgow, G4 0NW, Scotland, UK.E-Mail: arjan.buis@strath.ac.ukORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3947-293X
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,056 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».