http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-9012
References
- United National Institute for Prosthetics & Orthotics Development. 2013 [Internet]. Limbless statistics. Manchester, UK: University of Salford. Available from http://www.limbless-statistics.org/—Publications—.php
- Kelly K. 2015 [Internet]. Extrapolations: Prosthetic limbs forecast to 2050. Retrieved July 11, 2017, from http://kk.org/extrapolations/prosthetic-limbs-forecast-to-2050/
- Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:422–429.
- Murray CD, Forshaw MJ. The experience of amputation and prosthesis use for adults: A metasynthesis. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:1133–1142.
- Whyte AS, Niven CA. Psychological distress in amputees with phantom limb pain. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2001;22:938–946.
- Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:977–987.
- Jefferies P, Gallagher P, Philbin M. Being “just normal”: a grounded theory of prosthesis use. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1312564
- Glaser B. Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley (CA): Sociology Press; 1978.
- Glaser B. Emergence vs forcing: basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley (CA): Sociology Press; 1992.
- Glaser B. Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley (CA): Sociology Press; 1998.
- Glaser B. The grounded theory perspective: conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley (CA): Sociology Press; 2001.
- Glaser B. The grounded theory perspective II: description′s remodeling of grounded theory methodology. Mill Valley (CA): Sociology Press; 2003.
- Glaser B. The grounded theory perspective III: theoretical coding. Mill Valley (CA): Sociology Press; 2005.
- Glaser B. No preconceptions: the grounded theory dictum. Mill Valley (CA): Sociology Press; 2013.
- Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative inquiry. Chicago (IL): Aldine; 1967.
- Callaghan B, Condie E, Johnston M. Using the common sense self-regulation model to determine psychological predictors of prosthetic use and activity limitations in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32:324–336.
- Dillingham TR, Pezzin L, MacKenzie E, et al. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80:563–571.
- Schaffalitzky E, Gallagher P, Maclachlan M, et al. Understanding the benefits of prosthetic prescription: Exploring the experiences of practitioners and lower limb prosthetic users. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:1314–1323.
- Williamson GM, Schulz R, Bridges MW, et al. Social and psychological factors in adjustment to limb amputation. J Soc Behav Person. 1994;9:249–268.
- World Health Organization. 2011 [Internet]. World report on disability. Malta: World Health Organization. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/
- Murray CD. “Don’t you talk to your prosthetist?” Communicational problems in the prescription of artificial limbs. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:513–521.
- Madruga L. One step at a time: A young woman’s inspiring struggle to walk again. Lincoln (NE): iUniverse; 2000.
- Ostler C, Ellis-Hill C, Donovan-Hall M. Expectations of rehabilitation following lower limb amputation: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1169–1175.