MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3166250738 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35098

SELF-MANAGEMENT IN PERSONS WITH LIMB LOSS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2021· review· en· W3166250738 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Daniel Joseph Lee, Theresa Repole, Emily Taussig, Stephanie Edwards, Jamie Misegades, J Gomes Guerra, Amira Lisle

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLimb lossPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicineSurgeryAmputation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Self-management is an integral component of managing long-term conditions and diseases. For a person with limb loss, this self-management process involves caring for the residual limb, the prosthesis, and the prosthetic socket-residual limb interface. Failure to properly self-manage can result in unwanted secondary complications such as skin breakdown, falls, or non-use of the prosthesis. However, there is little evidence on what self-management interventions are effective at preventing secondary complications. To understand the impact of self-management after the loss of a limb, it is necessary to determine what the current evidence base supports.
 OBJECTIVE(S): The purpose of this study is to examine the available literature on self-management interventions and/or outcomes for persons with limb loss and describe how it may impact residual limb health or prosthesis use.
 METHODOLOGY: A systematic review of multiple databases was carried out using a variety of search terms associated with self-management. The results were reviewed and selected based on the inclusion criteria: self-management interventions or direct outcomes related to self-management, which includes the skin integrity of the residual limb, problem-solving the fit of the prosthesis, and education in the prevention of secondary complications associated with prosthesis use. The Cincinnati Childrens’ LEGEND (Let Evidence Guide Every New Decision) appraisal forms were used to analyze the articles and assign grades.
 FINDINGS: Out of the 40 articles identified for possible inclusion in this study, 33 were excluded resulting in seven articles being selected for this review. Three out of the seven articles focused on silicone liner management while the other four articles focused on skin issues.
 CONCLUSION: Self-management for a person with limb loss is a key component of preventing complications associated with loss of limb and prosthesis use. There is a lack of high-quality experimental studies exploring the most appropriate intervention for teaching self-management when compared to other conditions, specifically diabetes. Further research in the area of self-management is necessary to understand how to best prevent unwanted secondary complications.
 Layman's Abstract
 Self-management is an integral component of managing long-term conditions and diseases. Self-management for a person with limb loss involves performing proper hygiene of the residual limb, caring for the prosthesis, and problem-solving the fit between the prosthetic socket and the residual limb. If a person with limb loss fails to correctly self-manage, they may be exposing themselves to the risk of skin breakdown or injury. Other medical diagnoses like diabetes emphasize self-management in the care of persons with the condition and have established a large body of knowledge surrounding this element of lifestyle adaption. However, in the case of limb loss, there is very little evidence to support how self-management is taught or performed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the body of literature surrounding self-management in persons with limb loss. The results indicate that there is very little evidence supporting self-management related interventions and that further research is required in this area. With the addition of further research, clinical practice can be improved and self-management interventions can become standardized across the spectrum of care, much like in diabetes care.
 Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/35098/27909
 How To Cite: Lee DJ, Repole T, Taussig E, Edwards S, Misegades J, Guerra J, Lisle A. Self-management in persons with limb loss: A systematic review. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.5. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35098
 Corresponding Author: Daniel J. Lee, PT, PhD, DPT, GCS, COMTTouro College, Department of Physical Therapy, Bayshore, NY USA.Email:Daniel.lee29@touro.edu ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1805-2936

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,485
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalMême sujetProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsTravaux en français237 207