MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390409976 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v6i1.42170

PEER SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MAJOR LIMB LOSS: A SCOPING REVIEW

2023· review· en· W4390409976 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mia Costa-Parke, Anna Lella, Ashley Walker, Lee Verweel, Crystal MacKay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsWest Park Healthcare CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCINAHLPsychosocialSocial supportPsychological interventionPeer supportThematic analysisPsychologyMEDLINEPeer reviewIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)Qualitative researchMedicineApplied psychologyNursingSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207