A MIXED-METHODS STUDY ON PROSTHESIS USE AMONG OLDER CANADIANS WITH LOWER-LIMB AMPUTATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of lower-limb amputations (LLA) in older adults is increasing. Due to the substantial resources required for rehabilitation, there is growing interest in exploring prosthesis use as well as the factors that impact use for individuals with LLA. OBJECTIVES: To examine how older adults, those over 50 years old, with a new LLA use their prostheses following rehabilitation and to identify factors that increase or decrease prosthesis use after discharge from a rehabilitation hospital. METHODS: The StepWatch Activity Monitor, the Prosthetic Profile of the Amputee Questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview were used to measure prosthesis use and factors affecting use at 12 weeks post-discharge from a rehabilitation hospital. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the quantitative data and the qualitative interviews were analyzed using the International Classification of Functioning and Disability. RESULTS: Two user profiles emerged from the 11 participants’ use patterns. The Regular Users integrated their prosthesis into their lives, using it for various types of activities, while the Strategic Users wore their prosthesis to perform specific activities of daily and instrumental activities of daily living tasks. Body functions (e.g., pain), personal (e.g., feeling of independence), and environmental factors (e.g., home adaptations or social support) impacted prosthesis use. CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of profiles suggests variability in how older adults with LLA use their prosthesis after rehabilitation. However, the factors affecting prosthesis use were similar between the profiles. Therefore, while it is important for rehabilitation teams to consider patients’ individual needs when setting goals for prosthetic training, they must also consider common factors affecting prosthesis use. Layman's Abstract The prevalence of lower-limb amputations (LLA) in older adults is increasing. Because of the substantial resources rehabilitation demands, there is growing interest in exploring prosthesis use as well as the factors that impact use for individuals with LLA. In this study we examine how adults over the age of 50 with LLA use their prosthesis after rehabilitation. We also identify factors that increase or decrease prosthesis use after leaving a rehabilitation hospital. We used several measures to study prosthesis use. The StepWatch Activity Monitor, the Prosthetic Profile of the Amputee Questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview were all used to measure prosthesis use after 12 weeks from leaving a rehabilitation hospital. Two user profiles emerged from our data. The Regular Users integrated their prosthesis into their lives, using it for various types of activities, while the Strategic Users wore their prosthesis to perform specific ADL and IADL tasks. Body functions (e.g., pain), personal (e.g., feeling of independence), and environmental factors (e.g., home adaptations or social support) impacted prosthesis use. Our findings suggest there is variability in how older adults with LLA use their prosthesis after rehabilitation. However, the factors affecting prosthesis use were similar between the profiles. Therefore, while it is important for rehabilitation teams to consider patients’ individual needs when setting goals for prosthetic training, they must also consider common factors affecting prosthesis use. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/36833/28219 How To Cite: Pousett B, Budzinski C, Labbé D, Miller WC. A mixed-methods study on prosthesis use among older Canadians with lower-limb amputations. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.10. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.36833 Corresponding Author: William C Miller,University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), Canada. E-Mail: bill.miller@ubc.caORCID: https://orcid.org/ 0000-0003-3060-0210
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".