PEER SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MAJOR LIMB LOSS: A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major limb loss can have profound physical and psychosocial implications for individuals, impacting their quality of life and well-being. Despite the effectiveness of peer support in improving outcomes for various chronic conditions, its impact on individuals with major limb loss remains understudied. OBJECTIVE(S): This review aims to explore the existing literature on peer support for individuals with major limb loss. Specifically, exploring how the literature defines peer support; examining its implementation, identifying outcomes measured in peer support interventions, assessing the benefits for individuals with major limb loss, and identifying barriers associated with peer support provision. STUDY DESIGN: This review followed Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework, analysing relevant literature to identify evidence, definitions, and key factors related to peer support for individuals with major limb loss. METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive search in January 2023 utilized databases: MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase, and CINAHL. After a two-phase screening process, articles meeting specific criteria were included. Thematic and descriptive numerical analyses were applied to the extracted data. FINDINGS: Twenty-two articles were reviewed. Peer support was described as an opportunity to provide education, advice, and encouragement between individuals with lived experiences. Across the two intervention-based studies investigating peer support programs, outcome measures included physical, psychological, social, and quality of life. Qualitative studies described perceived benefits as improved psychosocial well-being and the opportunity to exchange knowledge. Perceived barriers included a lack of formal training and male-dominated groups, which deterred individuals with amputation from participating. CONCLUSION: The evidence from the findings of the review sheds light on the current understanding of peer support for individuals with amputation. Due to the limited number of studies available, future research is necessary to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of peer support interventions tailored to this population. Layman's Abstract Peer support offers a supportive relationship between individuals who have shared experiences with a disease or condition. While proven to enhance outcomes for individuals with chronic diseases, its impact on individuals with limb amputations is not well understood. The goal of this review was to explore how peer support is defined, measured, and implemented in individuals with amputation. This project summarized information from twenty-two peer-reviewed articles collected from multiple scientific databases. The benefits of peer support included improved psychosocial well-being and knowledge exchange, while identified barriers highlighted challenges such as a lack of formal training and gender imbalances within support groups. While this review sheds light on the positive aspects of peer support for individuals with amputation, it underscores the need for more extensive research in this area. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/42170/32283 How To Cite: Costa-Parke A, Di Lella A.M, Walker A, Verweel L, MacKay C. Peer support for individuals with major limb loss: A scoping review. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 1, No.6. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i1.42170 Corresponding Author: Lee Verweel, BSc, Msc West Park Healthcare Centre, Toronto, Canada.E-Mail: Lee.verweel@westpark.orgORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3363-8161
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 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".