A Focus Group– and Patient-Driven Study to Understand Patients’ and Health Care Providers’ Perspectives on Services for People with Amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates patients’ and health care providers’ perspectives on the services provided for people with amputation in Saskatoon. Method: We used a qualitative approach, following the Delphi method. A patient-oriented research team designed five questions and presented them to two focus groups. The discussions focused on what worked well in the health care system and what could be improved, what could be improved in the community, future research, and ways to improve specific knowledge translation regarding care of people with amputation to therapists. Results: The two focus groups consisted of 48 panellists, all community members and health care professionals. The themes that emerged included positive experiences with prosthetic care and the individual people responsible for amputee care and improvements needed to streamline the pathways of care, community support, education, and research into all aspects of amputation. Conclusions: Amputation is not just a one-time medical procedure; people with amputation need lifelong support from health care providers and the community. Clear pathways of care, access to immediate support, amputee-specific education for health care providers, better patient education, increased physical therapy, and enhanced resources and care were identified as areas in need of improvement. This study will, we hope, form the basis of future research to continually improve the quality of care and support for people living with amputation.
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".