Lower Limb Prosthetic Rehabilitation in Canada: A Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study describes prosthetic rehabilitation services provided to individuals who have had a lower limb amputation in Canada. Method: This cross-sectional survey study used an online survey to collect data from facilities that provide lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation; it included questions about approaches and types of service, therapies, focus of service, and health care providers. One representative from each facility was asked to complete the survey. Results: Of the 65 identified eligible facilities, 59 completed the survey (response rate = 90.8%). The majority of facilities ( n = 39; 66.1%) indicated that they provided both in-patient and outpatient prosthetic rehabilitation services. All facilities provided balance, coordination, and gait training as well as prosthetic fit education. Most facilities indicated that they had a physical therapist ( n = 58; 93.8%), an occupational therapist ( n = 52; 88.1%), and a prosthetist ( n = 52; 88.1%) on their team. Conclusions: The majority of the facilities surveyed provided both in-patient and outpatient services and had specialized health care provider teams. Future surveys are required to collect more specific information about prosthetic rehabilitation in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".