Community Reintegration Following a Total Joint Replacement: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine community reintegration following a hip or knee total joint replacement (TJR) from the perspective of rehabilitation clients. METHODS: A phenomenological frame of reference guided the present study. Ten participants who received inpatient rehabilitation completed semi-structured qualitative interviews to explore their experiences with reintegrating back into their chosen communities and the meanings that they ascribed to their reintegration. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. Demographic data, and information regarding participants' living situation and supports were extracted from existing databases and used to characterize the sample. RESULTS: Participants revealed that reintegration after a TJR encompassed two key elements of meaning: i) engagement in meaningful activities; and ii) satisfaction levels. Additionally, the following five factors were identified as facilitators or barriers to community reintegration following a TJR: i) ongoing preparation and education; ii) confounding health issues; iii) driving and transportation; iv) personal facilitators; v) access to supports from professionals, family and friends, and community programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The present study highlights the significance of engaging in meaningful activities and being satisfied in one's level of engagement to achieving a sense of community reintegration following a TJR. This suggests that reintegration post-TJR has broader meanings than just improvements in functional abilities. Practitioners are encouraged to inquire about patients' meaningful activities, support their preparedness throughout the rehabilitation process, to identify confounding health issues that may limit reintegration, consider patients' fears and anxieties and establish supports to enhance their feelings of self-efficacy and abilities to cope following a TJR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".