Sex and gender differences in quality of life and related domains for individuals with adult acquired lower-limb amputation: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand what is known about sex and gender differences in quality of life (QoL) and related domains for individuals with an adult acquired lower limb amputation (LLA). A computer-assisted literature search of four online databases was completed. Articles were included if they incorporated sex or gender as part of their data analysis with a focus on QoL-related domains. Data were analyzed using descriptive numerical analysis and thematic analysis. One hundred and eleven articles were included in this review. Women were under-represented across studies, with most of the participants being men. No articles described the inclusion of trans or non-binary persons. Differences by sex or gender were reported by 66 articles. Articles reporting on gender seldom provided descriptions of how gender was defined. Overall, women/females seemed to have worse outcomes in terms of prosthesis-related outcomes, mental health, and return to occupations. Articles included in this review were not clear with how gender was defined. In order for more targeted interventions that account for sex and gender differences, studies need to be more forthcoming about how they use and define gender. Future research should seek to include gender non-conforming participants to identify additional needs.Implications for rehabilitationSex and gender are important constructs that influence outcomes following lower limb amputation.Rehabilitation professionals should consider sex and gender-specific outcomes when tailoring programs to ensure ethical clinical care. Sex and gender are important constructs that influence outcomes following lower limb amputation. Rehabilitation professionals should consider sex and gender-specific outcomes when tailoring programs to ensure ethical clinical care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".