ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BALANCE SELF-EFFICACY AND WALKING ABILITY IN THOSE WITH NEW LOWER LIMB AMPUTATIONS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A relationship between walking ability and self-efficacy has been demonstrated in various rehabilitation patient populations. In experienced prosthetic ambulators, walking ability is related to self-efficacy of balance, however, this relationship has not been quantified for those with newly acquired lower limb amputations (LLA). OBJECTIVE(S): To investigate the association between walking performance (objective) and self-reported walking abilities (subjective) on balance self-efficacy in those with LLA. METHODOLOGY: Cross-sectional study of 27 people (17 men; mean age=63.57±9.33) at discharge from inpatient prosthetic rehabilitation for first major unilateral LLA. Individuals completed 6m straight path walking and the L-Test under single- and dual-task conditions. The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) was administered, and the Ambulation subscale provided subjective measures of walking ability. A single PEQ question on satisfaction with walking (16B) was also used as a proxy for subjective walking ability. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale measured balance self-efficacy. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the strength of association between walking ability (objective and subjective) and balance self-efficacy (dependent variable). FINDINGS: Walking velocity on the 6m straight path under single-task (p=0.011) and dual-task conditions (p=0.039), the single-task L-Test (p=0.035) and self-reported satisfaction with walking (p=0.019) were associated with self-efficacy of balance. CONCLUSION: Objective measures of walking ability that were independently associated with balance self-efficacy included straight path walking velocity under single and dual-task conditions and the single-task L-Test. Satisfaction with walking was also associated with balance self-efficacy. This highlights the interplay between physical and psychological factors during rehabilitation. More research in the area of self-efficacy and walking ability is needed to establish self-efficacy as a target during prosthetic rehabilitation for those with LLA. Layman's Abstract Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in their ability to do a certain task well. Improving self-efficacy can be done by watching others complete a task, by getting praise from experts, or by doing the task yourself. There is a link between how well some people walk and their confidence with walking, however this has not been studied in people learning to use a lower limb prosthesis. The goal of this paper was to study the link between balance self-efficacy, scores on walking tests and self-reported walking ability in those with lower limb amputations (LLA) when they leave rehabilitation. To do this, two walking tests were done (straight path and complex path) in two settings (walking only and walking with distraction). A survey about walking ability and a questionnaire on balance self-efficacy were also done. Results showed that self-efficacy of balance was related to the straight path walking test under both settings and the complex walking test during walking alone. A person’s satisfaction with walking ability was also linked. The only test not related was the complex walking test under distracting conditions. It might be that more time is needed for people with LLA to confidently do this task. This shows the link between physical and mental factors during rehabilitation. More research is needed to find other factors that might impact self-efficacy and walking ability in people with LLA when they leave rehabilitation. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/36695/28904 How To Cite: Frengopoulos C, Zia Z, Payne M.W.C, Viana R, Hunter S.W. Association between balance self-efficacy and walking ability in those with new lower limb amputations. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.4. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.36695 Corresponding Author: Courtney Frengopoulos,University of Western Ontario, Room 1408, Elborn College, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 1H1.E-Mail: cfrengop@uwo.caORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4131-2727
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».