Perceptions of physical activity among individuals with limb loss: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Individuals with lower-limb amputations (LLA) often have deficits in balance and community walking ability. As a result, people with LLA are often sedentary. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of physical activity from the perspective of people with LLA. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study situated within an interpretive research paradigm was conducted. Semistructured interviews were held by telephone or in person with adults living with major LLAs recruited from rehabilitation hospitals and advertisements on social media. Individuals were included if they were age 18 years and older with a major LLA. Purposive sampling was used to ensure variation by sex, cause, and level of amputation. RESULTS: Thirty-three people with LLA participated (22 men/11 women; median age 63 years). The majority of individuals had a unilateral, transtibial amputation (∼50% dysvascular LLA). Three main themes were developed to characterize participants' perceptions of physical activity: (1) physical activity is perceived as important but can be challenging after amputation; (2) physical activity has physical and mental health benefits; and (3) physical activity is a means to maintain independence and engagement in community and social life. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining the perspectives of individuals with LLA about physical activity helps us understand how they think about it, what motivates them, and how we can optimize physical activity levels. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to enhance physical activity in this population.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".