Abstract
Purpose: To measure self-efficacy in a group of individuals who have undergone a lower-limb amputation and investigate the relationship between self-efficacy and prosthetic-specific outcomes including prosthetic use, mobility, amputation-related problems and global health. A second purpose was to examine if differences exist in outcomes based upon the type of prosthetic knee unit being used.
Method: Cross-sectional study using the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale and the Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA). Forty-two individuals participated in the study. Twenty-three used a non-microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joint (non-MPK) and 19 used a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joint (MPK).
Results: The study sample had quite high GSE scores (32/40). GSE scores were significantly correlated to the Q-TFA prosthetic use, mobility and problem scores. High GSE scores were related to higher levels of prosthetic use, mobility, global scores and negatively related to problem score. No significant difference was observed between individuals using a non-MPK versus MPK joints.
Conclusions: Individuals with high self-efficacy used their prosthesis to a higher degree and high self-efficacy was related to higher level of mobility, global scores and fewer problems related to the amputation in individuals who have undergone a lower-limb amputation and were using a non-MPK or MPK knee.
Perceived self-efficacy has has been shown to be related to quality of life, prosthetic mobility and capability as well as social activities in daily life.
Prosthetic rehabilitation is primary focusing on physical improvement rather than psychological interventions.
More attention should be directed towards the relationship between self-efficacy and prosthetic related outcomes during prosthetic rehabilitation after a lower-limb amputation.
Implications for rehabilitation
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge assistance of Björn Börsbo, David Rusaw and Ingvar Kåreholt.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.