Life after Upper Extremity Replantation: An Examination of the Experiences of an Adolescent Male, his Family, and the Treating Certified Hand Therapist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth perspective on the experience of replantation of a traumatically amputated upper extremity and the subsequent rehabilitation process through the point of view of a 15 year old patient, his parents, his sister, and the treating Certified Hand Therapist (CHT). As an occupational therapist it is important to understand the family relationships, support networks, and the role of the patient in the family. The therapist is in a unique position to provide treatment and emotional support that the patient and family need after experiencing trauma. This case study appraisal using a qualitative design included an exploration of the hand therapy chart (including the surgical report) and audio recorded interviews with the patient, each parent separately, the patient’s sister, and the CHT. A three interview structure for in-depth phenomenological interviewing was used with the patient. The results of the chart review explain the surgical procedures, the therapeutic interventions, and the process of healing. The results of the thematic analysis of the interviews revealed three salient themes: pain (i.e. emotional and physical), transformation (i.e. transformation of self and roles), and miracles (i.e. surviving, retention of the limb, and retention of the family). The findings suggest that coping after a traumatic accident is a family process and all of the family members will experience this process differently.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".