A qualitative study examining prosthesis use in everyday life in individuals with lower limb amputations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 it