Exploring the barriers and facilitators to community reintegration for adults following traumatic upper limb amputation: a mixed methods systematic review

References

• 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(11):871–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldin-Meadow S, Alibali MW. Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64(1):257–283.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Procedures and health interventions (ACHI 10th) Australia 2017–2018 2019. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/hospitals/procedures-data-cubes/contents/data-cubes.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, O’Donovan MA, Doyle A, et al. Environmental barriers, activity limitations and participation restrictions experienced by people with major limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(3):278–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desteli E, 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(6):735–739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung E, Alvaro R, Colotla V. Psychological distress in workers with traumatic upper or lower limb amputations following industrial injuries. Rehabil Psychol. 2003; May48(2):109–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Sluis CK, Hartman PP, Schoppen T, et al. Job adjustments, job satisfaction and health experience in upper and lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009;33(1):41–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korkmaz M, Erbahçeci F, Ulger O, et al. Evaluation of functionality in acquired and congenital upper extremity child amputees. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2012;46(4):262–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smurr L, Gulick K, Yancosek K, et al. Managing the upper extremity amputee: a protocol for success. J Hand Ther. 2008;21(2):160–175; quiz 176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF, the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Upper Extremity Amputation Rehabilitation 2014. Available from: https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/Rehab/UEAR/VADoDCPGManagementofUEAR121614Corrected508.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther. 2009;89(9):873–880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlin G, Borgetto B. Research pyramid: a new evidence-based practice model for occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther. 2011;65(2):189–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letts L, Wilkins S, Law M, et al. Critical review form – qualitative studies (version 2.0). Ontario: McMaster University. 2007. Available from: https://www.unisa.edu.au/contentassets/72bf75606a2b4abcaf7f17404af374ad/7b-mcmasters_qualreview_version2-01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Law M, Stewart D, Pollock N. Critical review form-quantitative studies Ontario: McMaster University, et al. 1998. Available from: https://www.unisa.edu.au/siteassets/episerver-6-files/global/health/sansom/documents/icahe/cats/mcmasters_quantitative-review.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis : Joanna Briggs Institute; 2020. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J. Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Res Schools. 2006;13(1):29.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDonald CL, Bennett CL, Rosner DK, et al. Perceptions of ability among adults with upper limb absence: impacts of learning, identity, and community [research support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.]. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(23):3306–3315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widehammar C, Pettersson I, Janeslätt G, et al. The influence of environment: experiences of users of myoelectric arm prosthesis—a qualitative study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42(1):28–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell J, Friedland J, Kirsh B, et al. The value filter: a novel framework for psychosocial adjustment to traumatic upper extremity amputation. J Occup Rehabil. 2021;32(1):87–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ligthelm EJ, Wright SD. Lived experience of persons with an amputation of the upper limb. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. 2014;18(2):99–106.
   Google Scholar
• Reed D. Understanding and meeting the needs of farmers with amputations. Orthop Nurs. 2004;23(6):397–405.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morgado Ramirez DZ, Nakandi B, Ssekitoleko R, et al. The lived experience of people with upper limb absence living in Uganda: a qualitative study. Afr J Disabil. 2022;11(1):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther. 2002;15(1):62–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Widehammar C, Lidström H, Hermansson L. Environmental barriers to participation and facilitators for use of three types of assistive technology devices. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):68–76.
   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(6):907–921.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yamamoto M, Chung KC, Sterbenz J, et al. Cross-sectional international multicenter study on quality of life and reasons for abandonment of upper limb prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(5):e2205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Datta D, Selvarajah K, Davey N. Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency–acquired and congenital. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(2):172–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez A, Isusi I, Gomez M. Factors conditioning the return to work of upper limb amputees in Asturias, Spain [comparative study]. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24(2):143–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema SG, Bongers RM, Brouwers MA, et al. Upper limb absence: predictors of work participation and work productivity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(6):892–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger H, Marincek C. Driving ability following upper limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37(5):391–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyberd PJ, Hill W. Survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(2):234–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Engdahl S, Riegger A, et al. Employment status in individuals with Upper-Limb amputation: a survey of current trends. J Prosthet Orthot. 2022;34(2):79–88.
   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(6):479–493.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luchetti M, Cutti AG, Verni G, et al. Impact of michelangelo prosthetic hand: findings from a crossover longitudinal study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(5):605–618.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hou WH, Chi CC, Lo HL, et al. Vocational rehabilitation for enhancing return-to-work in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(12):1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darter BJ, Hawley CE, Armstrong AJ, et al. Factors influencing functional outcomes and return-to-work after amputation: a review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(4):656–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millstein S, Bain D, Hunter GA. A review of employment patterns of industrial amputees–factors influencing rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1985;9(2):69–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batten H, Lamont R, Kuys S, et al. What are the barriers and enablers that people with a lower limb amputation experience when walking in the community? Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(24):3481–3487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee LS, Hitzig SL, Mayo A, et al. Factors influencing physical activity among individuals with lower limb amputations: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;:1–10. DOI:10.1080/09638288.2022.2065539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeves J, Hutchison A, D’Cruz K, et al. Social and community participation following traumatic lower limb amputation: an exploratory qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;:1–9. DOI:10.1080/09638288.2022.2152114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Cancio J, et al. Upper limb prosthesis users: a longitudinal cohort study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021;45(5):384–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Silver B. Measuring community integration in persons with limb trauma and amputation: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(3):561–580.e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abedzadeh–kalahroudi M, Razi E, Sehat M, et al. Psychometric properties of the world health organization disability assessment schedule II -12 item (WHODAS II) in trauma patients. Injury. 2016;47(5):1104–1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffey LP, Gallagher PP, Desmond DP. Goal pursuit and goal adjustment as predictors of disability and quality of life among individuals with a lower limb amputation: a prospective study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(2):244–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffey LP, Gallagher PP, Desmond DP, et al. Goal management tendencies predict trajectories of adjustment to lower limb amputation up to 15 months post rehabilitation discharge. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(10):1895–1902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, Franchignoni F, Giordano A, et al. Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales: a psychometric assessment using classical test theory and rasch analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(6):487–496. Jun
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, Maclachlan M. The Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales and quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation [research support, non-U.S. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(5):730–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond D, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; Jul84(7):506–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteneck GG, Harrison-Felix CL, Mellick DC, et al. Quantifying environmental factors: a measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(8):1324–1335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteneck GG, Meade MA, Dijkers M, et al. Environmental factors and their role in participation and life satisfaction after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(11):1793–1803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R. Validation of the short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke. 1996;27(10):1812–1816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findler M, Cantor J, Haddad L, et al. The reliability and validity of the SF-36 health survey questionnaire for use with individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2001;15(8):715–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andresen EM, Fouts BS, Romeis JC, et al. Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(8):877–884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forchheimer M, McAweeney M, Tate DG. Use of the SF-36 among persons with spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;83(5):390–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin M-R, Hwang H-F, Chen C-Y, et al. Comparisons of the brief form of the World Health Organization quality of life and short form-36 for persons with spinal cord injuries. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86(2):104–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffen T, Seney M. Test-Retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther. 2008;88(6):733–746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown CA, Cheng EM, Hays RD, et al. SF-36 includes less Parkinson disease (PD)-targeted content but is more responsive to change than two PD-Targeted Health-Related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1219–1237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar