A qualitative study examining prosthesis use in everyday life in individuals with lower limb amputations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lower limb amputation (LLA) is a life-changing event that affects functional mobility and participation in everyday life. Prostheses provide individuals with LLA the opportunity to improve mobility and quality of life; however, existing literature suggests that there is underuse of prostheses. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to describe how individuals with major LLA use their prosthesis in everyday life and describe barriers and facilitators that influence prosthesis use. STUDY DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive methodology was used. METHODS: Ten community dwelling adults (>18 years) with unilateral major LLAs (transtibial, transfemoral, and knee disarticulation) attending outpatient follow-up at a specialized rehabilitation center were recruited. Participants were purposively sampled for variation in prosthesis use and level of amputation. One-on-one semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The experiences of individuals with major LLA were organized into three overarching themes: everyday experiences using a prosthesis, extrinsic factors influencing prosthesis use, and intrinsic factors influencing prosthesis use. These themes, and their associated subthemes, highlight how individuals use their prosthesis and the various factors perceived to act as barriers and facilitators to prosthesis use in everyday life. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable insight into the everyday experiences of individuals with LLA and can be used to implement strategies to optimize prosthesis use.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".