Developing a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Amputation (PRO-AMP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lower limb amputation (LLA) can be a life altering event that negatively influences quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools that can be used to better understand how LLA influences a person’s life. To date, there are few PROMs that have been specifically developed for persons with LLA that capture the overall picture of QoL for this population. While generic measures of QoL can give us valuable information that can be compared across populations, condition-specific measures are better suited for obtaining a more nuanced understanding of living with LLA. Objective: The aim of this dissertation was to develop a PROM for amputation that incorporates the experiences of persons with LLA (PRO-AMP). Methods: Three studies were undertaken: 1) a scoping review, 2) a qualitative study and 3) the development of the PRO-AMP. PRO-AMP development was guided by the steps outlined by Haywood and colleagues. Items were generated using the findings from study one and two as well as additional qualitative data, knowledge syntheses, and stakeholder input. Cognitive interviews were conducted to determine the validity and acceptability of the items to the target population. Analysis of the cognitive interviews was done using the Question Appraisal System-99. Results: One hundred and forty items were developed from 55 qualitative interviews, five knowledge syntheses and expert review (n=11). The initial item bank was organized into six main headings for ease of administration: 1) general health (n=6), 2) mental health (n=26), 3) mobility/function (n=32), 4) occupation (n=34), 5) physical health (n=24), and 6) relationships (n=18). Twenty-four participants with LLA completed the first round and second round of cognitive interviews. The most common sources of error during the first round were vague terminology and lack of reference/time period. Six questions were refined and re-administered with no additional major problems being identified. Conclusion: The outcome of this dissertation was the development of the PRO-AMP which will fill an important gap in understanding the impact of LLA on an individual’s QoL. By using an established PROM development process, it ensures that the newly developed measure will be meaningful to the LLA 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".