“I would not want my leg back”: Living experiences of adult amputees following intensive functional rehabilitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Individuals living with amputations following intensive functional rehabilitation (IFR) represent an under-researched group in Quebec. This pilot study aimed to examine the health experiences of adults living with an amputation in Quebec by exploring their personal narratives. Design/Research Method: A qualitative descriptive design was adopted aiming to capture and convey the lived experiences of people with lower limb amputations or upper limb amputations who, at any point of their lives, followed IFR. Individual qualitative interviews with 10 adult amputees were conducted between 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed seven key themes: (a) overcoming public scrutiny; (b) intrapersonal challenges; (c) stakeholders as sources of motivation; (d) the role of play; (e) recognizing normality in situations of disability; (f) acceptance and personal development; and (g) shortcomings in IFR services. CONCLUSION: This research stresses the impact IFR and long-term follow-up can pose on physical and psychosocial development and on going back to a normalized lifestyle. As such, fostering stakeholders for motivational support, strengthening work and sports activities focused on challenging and playful activities to improve limb-loss-affected skills, and providing sustained rehabilitation support, appear to facilitate recovery, postamputation development, and psychosocial adaptation. Improved access to information on postrehabilitation aids, including financial rights and prosthetics, appears important. Although the study sample was restricted in terms of representation, the findings may support the consideration of diverse patient perspectives and distinct types of amputations to better understand the impact of IFR and follow-up throughout the lifespan. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".