Amputees’ Attitudes Toward Participation in Amputee Support Groups and the Role of Virtual Technology in Supporting Amputees: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acquiring information about and living with an amputation (or limb differential) is a lifelong endeavor. Although medical institutions address the immediate medical needs of amputees, information regarding how to live life as an amputee is provided from numerous sources, one of which is amputee support groups. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at understanding why amputees join support groups, leave support groups, and possibly return to support groups as well as how technology, specifically virtual reality, might play a role in supporting patients' needs. The results are intended to provide data for support groups, to increase their impact on amputee participants. METHODS: A 38-item online survey was developed based on the findings of a previous randomized trial. The survey was administered between April and September 2018 and divided into four sections: Demographics, Limb Loss History, Amputee Support Group Participation, and Technology Usage. Items used multiple-choice, drop-down menu, check-box formats with explanation boxes for open-ended responses. Descriptive analyses were performed for both qualitative (open-ended questions) and quantitative data. RESULTS: Of the 59 amputees enrolled, 54 completed the survey. All the respondents were aged 20-39 years, and nearly half of the older respondents thought audio and video teleconferencing or avatar-based technology would increase participation in support groups. The results suggest that an early goal for amputees who join support groups is to focus on regaining mobility and functionality in order to return to their normal life. Once achieved, the goal transitions to one of social connection with other amputees, although there is a caveat: Simply being an amputee may not provide sufficient connections for developing long-term social relationships. The strongest reason for joining a support group was to learn about living with an amputation, followed by networking and learning new skills. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest four key takeaways regarding amputee participation in support groups: (1) the needs of participants in amputee support groups change over time; (2) meeting content needs to be relevant to agendas primarily driven by participants; (3) support group participation is also driven by the desire to increase functionality by developing skills, become familiar with prosthetic technology, have more than amputation in common with other participants, and participate at the designated meeting time and location; and (4) the use of technology should support patients' needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".