Perceptions of ability among adults with upper limb absence: impacts of learning, identity, and community

References

• Smith DG, Michael JW, Bowker JH. Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies. 3rd edition. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Østlie K, Lesjø IM, Franklin RJ, et al. Prosthesis rejection in acquired major upper-limb amputees: a population-based survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7:294–303.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Postema K, van der Donk V, van Limbeek J, et al. Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:243–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:977–987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31:236–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Beaton D, Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:346–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burger H, Marincek C. Upper limb prosthetic use in Slovenia. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18:25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFarland L, Winkler S, Heinemann A, et al. Unilateral upper-limb loss: satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and service members from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47:299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. The roles of predisposing characteristics, established need, and enabling resources on upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:71–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kejlaa G. Consumer concerns and the functional value of prostheses to upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17:157–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farina D, Amsüss S. Reflections on the present and future of upper limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13:321–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. The DEKA Arm: its features, functionality, and evolution during the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38:492–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James MA, Bagley AM, Brasington K, et al. Impact of prostheses on function and quality of life for children with unilateral congenital below-the-elbow deficiency. J Bone Jt Surg. 2006;88:2356–2365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema SG, Bongers RM, Brouwers MA, et al. Musculoskeletal complaints in transverse upper limb reduction deficiency and amputation in the Netherlands: prevalence, predictors, and effect on health. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:1137–1145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saylor, T Redifining the engineer: ability, textiles, and engineering at home. Clare Boothe Luce Undergraduate Research Scholars. 2016. Paper 18. http://digitialcommons.olin.edu/clare_boothe_luce/18
   Google Scholar
• Buehler E, Branham S, Ali A, et al. Sharing is caring: assistive technology designs on thingiverse. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2015 [cited 2017 Nov 1]. p. 525–534. Available from:
   Google Scholar
• Burn MB, Ta A, Gogola GR. Three-dimensional printing of prosthetic hands for children. J Hand Surg. 2016;41:e103–109.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hofmann M, Burke J, Pearlman J, et al. Clinical and maker perspectives on the design of assistive technology with rapid prototyping technologies. Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2016 [cited 2017 Nov 1]. p. 251–256. Available from:
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann M, Harris J, Hudson SE, et al. Helping hands: requirements for a prototyping methodology for upper-limb prosthetics users. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2016 [cited 2017 Nov 1]. p. 1769–1780. Available from:
   Google Scholar
• Zuniga J, Peck J, Srivastava R, et al. An open source 3D-printed transitional hand prosthesis for children. J Prosthet Orthot. 2016;28:1.
   Google Scholar
• Johansen H, Østlie K, Andersen LØ, et al. Health-related quality of life in adults with congenital unilateral upper limb deficiency in Norway. A cross-sectional study. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:2305–2314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michielsen A, Van Wijk I, Ketelaar M. Participation and quality of life in children and adolescents with congenital limb deficiencies: a narrative review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34:351–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett CL, Cen K, Steele KM, et al. An intimate laboratory?: prostheses as a tool for experimenting with identity and normalcy. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM; 2016. p. 1745–1756.
   Google Scholar
• Sedgwick M, Spiers J. The use of videoconferencing as a medium for the qualitative interview. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Burger H, Franchignoni F, Heinemann A, et al. Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:393–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O’Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:191–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarl G, Holmefur M, Hermansson LM. Test–retest reliability of the Swedish version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38:21–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarl GM, Heinemann AW, Norling Hermansson LM. Validity evidence for a modified version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7:469–478.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Breakey JW. Body image: the lower-limb amputee. J Prosthet Orthot. 1997;9:58.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, Horgan O, Franchignoni F, et al. Body image in people with lower-limb amputation: a Rasch analysis of the Amputee Body Image Scale. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:205–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggerstaff D, Thompson AR. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): a qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research. Qual Res Psychol. 2008;5:214–224.
   Google Scholar
• Murray CD. An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:963–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caelli K. The changing face of phenomenological research: traditional and American phenomenology in nursing. Qual Health Res. 2000;10:366–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dromerick AW, Schabowsky CN, Holley RJ, et al. Effect of training on upper-extremity prosthetic performance and motor learning: a single-case study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1199–1204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang CH, Yang HS, Yang HE, et al. A survey on activities of daily living and occupations of upper extremity amputees. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011;35:907.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dudkiewicz I, Gabrielov R, Seiv-Ner I, et al. Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:60–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Østlie K, Lesjø IM, Franklin RJ, et al. Prosthesis use in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees: patterns of wear, prosthetic skills and the actual use of prostheses in activities of daily life. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7:479–493.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• NiMhurchadha S, Gallagher P, MacLachlan M, et al. Identifying successful outcomes and important factors to consider in upper limb amputation rehabilitation: an international web-based Delphi survey. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:1726–1733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deijs M, Bongers RM, Ringeling - van Leusen NDM, et al. Flexible and static wrist units in upper limb prosthesis users: functionality scores, user satisfaction and compensatory movements. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2016;13:26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desteli EE, İmren Y, Erdoğan M, et al. Comparison of upper limb amputees and lower limb amputees: a psychosocial perspective. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014;40:735–739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilg AC. The impact of amputation on body image [Honors thesis]. [Hattiesburg, Mississippi]: The University of Southern Mississippi; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Mohammed SA, Shebl AM. Quality of life among Egyptian patients with upper and lower limb amputation: sex differences. Adv Med. 2014;2014:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Wurdeman SR, Stevens PM, Campbell JH. Mobility Analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT I): quality of life and satisfaction are strongly related to mobility for patients with a lower limb prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42:498–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demet K, Martinet N, Guillemin F, et al. Health related quality of life and related factors in 539 persons with amputation of upper and lower limb. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:480–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saradjian A, Thompson AR, Datta D. The experience of men using an upper limb prosthesis following amputation: positive coping and minimizing feeling different. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:871–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray CD. Being like everybody else: the personal meanings of being a prosthesis user. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:573–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner CD, Brenner JK. The use of preparatory/evaluation/training prostheses in developing evidenced-based practice in upper limb prosthetics. J Prosthet Orthot. 2008;20:70.
   Google Scholar
• Kanas JL, Holowka M. Adaptive upper extremity prostheses for recreation and play. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2009;2:181–187.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vasluian E, de Jong IGM, Janssen WGM, et al. Opinions of youngsters with congenital below-elbow deficiency, and those of their parents and professionals concerning prosthetic use and rehabilitation treatment. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e67101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson SS, Mansfield E. Prosthetic training: upper limb. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am. 2014;25:133–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell M, Gorelick M, Anderson DI, et al. Prosthetic education: are occupational therapy students’ needs being met? Open J Ther Rehabil. 2014;2:5–11.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Bureau of Labor. Orthotists and Prosthetists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2016 Mar 10]. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/orthotists-and-prosthetists.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips MJ. “Try harder”: the experience of disability and the dilemma of normalization. Soc Sci J. 1985;22:45–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louise-Bender PT, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:5–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilhorst M. ‘Prosthetic fit’: on personal identity and the value of bodily difference. Med Health Care Philos. 2005;7:303–310.
   Google Scholar
• Kuyper MA, Breedijk M, Mulders AH, et al. Prosthetic management of children in the Netherlands with upper limb deficiencies. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25:228–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scotland TR, Galway HR. A long-term review of children with congenital and acquired upper limb deficiency. Bone Jt J. 1983;65-B:346–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huizing K, Reinders-Messelink H, Maathuis C, et al. Age at first prosthetic fitting and later functional outcome in children and young adults with unilateral congenital below-elbow deficiency: a cross-sectional study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34:166–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meurs M, Maathuis CGB, Lucas C, et al. Prescription of the first prosthesis and later use in children with congenital unilateral upper limb deficiency: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2006;30:165–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong IGM, Reinders-Messelink HA, Janssen WGM, et al. Mixed feelings of children and adolescents with unilateral congenital below elbow deficiency: an online focus group study. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e37099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yiİĝiİter K, Ülger Ö, Şener G, et al. Demography and function of children with limb loss. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:131–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne S, Coffey L, Gallagher P, et al. “If I can do it I will do it, if I can’t, I can’t”: a study of adaptive self-regulatory strategies following lower limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1990–1997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horgan O, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: a review. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:837–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuehn BM. Clinicians embrace 3D printers to solve unique clinical challenges. J Am Med Assoc. 2016;315:333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lettl C, Herstatt C, Gemuenden HG. Users’ contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. RD Manag. 2006;36:251–272.
   Google Scholar
• Troncossi M, Parenti-Castelli V, Davalli A. Design of upper limb prostheses: a new subject-oriented approach. J Mech Med Biol. 2005;5:383–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Latlief G, Klinger SL, et al. Do users want to receive a DEKA Arm and why? Overall findings from the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38:456–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar