Exploring meaningful outcome domains of recovery following lower limb amputation and prosthetic rehabilitation: the patient’s perspective

References

• Gray M. Value based healthcare. BMJ. 2017;356:j437–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Value of Health Initiative. The Value of health: Improving outcomes final report. European Alliance for Value in Health; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Hurst L, Mahtani K, Pluddemann A, et al. Defining Value-based Healthcare in the NHS: CEBM report May 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke S, Taal E, Hewlett S, et al. OMERACT. The OMERACT glossary. OMERACT [Internet]. 2021 [Cited Oct 2021]. Available from www.omeract.org/glossary/
   Google Scholar
• Robinson C, Fatone S. You’ve heard about outcome measures, so how do you use them? Integrating clinically relevant outcome measures in orthotic management of stroke. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37(1):30–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommers GM, Vos LD, Groothoff JW, et al. Mobility of people with lower limb amputations: Scales and questionnaires: a review. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15(1):92–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Condie E, Scott H, Treweek S. Lower limb prosthetic outcome measures: a review of the literature 1995 to 2005. J Prosthetics Orthot. 2006;18:13–45.
   Google Scholar
• Deathe AB, Wolfe DL, Devlin M, et al. Selection of outcome measures in lower extremity amputation rehabilitation: ICF activities. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(18):1455–1473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hebert JS, Wolfe DL, Miller WC, et al. Outcome measures in amputation rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(19):1541–1554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu J, Kohler F, Dickson H. Systematic review of concepts measured in individuals with lower limb amputation using the international classification of functioning, disability and health as a reference. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(3):262–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann AW, Ehrlich-Jones L, Connelly L, et al. Enhancing quality of prosthetic services with process and outcome information. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41(2):164–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins EJ, Riddick W. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of clinical performance–based outcome measures of walking for individuals with lower limb amputations: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2018;98(12):1037–1045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scopes J. Outcome measures of physical function in adult unilateral lower limb amputees during prosthetic rehabilitation: use in clinical practice and psychometric properties [dissertation]. Glasgow: Queen Marys University; 2016.
   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
• Balk EM, Gazula A, Markozannes G, et al. Psychometric properties of functional, ambulatory, and quality of life instruments in lower limb amputees: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(12):2354–2370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann AW, Connelly L, Ehrlich-Jones L, et al. Outcome instruments for prosthetics: clinical applications. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(1):179–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostler C, Scott H, Sedki I, et al. From outcome measurement to improving health outcomes following lower limb amputation - A narrative review exploring outcome measurement from a clinical practice perspective. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2022;46(4):e341–e350. 1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(S3):1–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, et al. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan K, Chief Editors of journals participating in the CROWN Initiative. The CROWN initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women’s health. J Ovarian Res. 2015;8:6–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• COMET Intitative. Core outcomes in effectiveness trials. [Internet]. Liverpool: COMET Intitative; 2022. www.comet-initiative.org
   Google Scholar
• Kelley TA. International consortium for health outcomes measurement (ICHOM). Trials. 2015;16(S3):2015.
   Google Scholar
• Murray CD, Forshaw MJ. The experience of amputation and prosthesis use for adults: a metasynthesis. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(14):1133–1142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon MP, Fatone S, Ramstrand N, et al. Prosthetics and orthotics international welcomes qualitative research submissions. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019;43(4):366–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radhakrishnan S, Kohler F, Gutenbrunner C, et al. Mobility in persons with lower extremity amputations and influencing factors: Using the international classification of functioning, disability and health to quantify expert views. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019;43(1):88–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radhakrishnan S, Kohler F, Gutenbrunner C, et al. The use of the international classification of functioning, disability and health to classify the factors influencing mobility reported by persons with an amputation: an international study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41(4):412–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu J. A Core set for people following lower limb amputation based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health [dissertation]. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Burger H. Functioning of persons following lower limb amputation-patients’ perspective. Med. 2012;48:471–479.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The ICF: an overview. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Kohler F, Xu J, Silva-Withmory C, et al. Feasibility of using a checklist based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health as an outcome measure in individuals following lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(3):294–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selb M, Escorpizo R, Kostanjsek N, et al. A guide on how to develop an international classification of. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;51(1):105–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald CL, Cheever SM, Morgan SJ, et al. Prosthetic limb user experiences with crossover feet: a pilot focus group study to explore outcomes that matter. J Prosthetics Orthot. 2019;31:133–139.
   Google Scholar
• 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(15–16):1314–1323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaffalitzky E, Gallagher P, MacLachlan M, et al. Developing consensus on important factors associated with lower limb prosthetic prescription and use. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(24):2085–2094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• College of Occupational Therapists. Occupational therapy with people who have had lower limb amputations. Evidence-based guidelines. College of Occupational therapists. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine. Amputee and prosthetic Rehabilitation-Standards and guidelines. 3rd ed. London: British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Broomhead P, Clark K, Dawes D, et al. Evidence based clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy management of adults with lower limb prostheses. BACPAR. 2012;03:1–68.
   Google Scholar
• British Association of Prosthetists and Orthotists (BAPO). Service provision guidance for prosthetic & orthotic services. Seedhill, Paisley: BAPO; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke V, Braun V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. 1st ed. London: Sage; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke V, Braun V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London: Sage; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Partnership UPISD. UK standards for public involvement. England: NIHR; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• INVOLVE. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Jupiter D, LaFontaine J, Barshes N, et al. Transmetatarsal and minor amputation versus major leg amputation: 30-Day readmissions, reamputations, and complications. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;59(3):484–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor SM, Kalbaugh CA, Blackhurst DW, et al. Preoperative clinical factors predict postoperative functional outcomes after major lower limb amputation: an analysis of 553 consecutive patients. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42(2):227–235.
   PubMed 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
• Twiste M. Limbless statistics. 2021. www.limbless-statistics.org
   Google Scholar
• Davie-Smith F, Hebenton J, Scott H. A survey of the lower limb amputee population in Scotland. Scottish Physiotherapy Amputee Research Group. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Moxey PW, Hofman D, Hinchliffe RJ, et al. Epidemiological study of lower limb amputation in England between 2003 and 2008. Br J Surg. 2010;97(9):1348–1353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert SD, Loiselle CG. Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(2):228–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yardley L. Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In: Smith J, editor. Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications Limited; 2015. p. 257–272.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Heal. 2021;13(2):201–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London: SAGE Publications Inc; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, et al. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1802–1811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambler GK, Brookes-Howell L, Jones JAR, et al. Development of core outcome sets for people undergoing major lower limb amputation for complications of peripheral vascular disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;60(5):730–738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NHS England. Clinical Commissioning Policy: Microprocessor controlled prosthetic knees. England: NHS England; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• NHS England. Complex disability equipment - prosthetic specialised services for people of all ages with limb loss. England: NHS England; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Scopes J, Tisdale L, Cole M-J, et al. The BACPAR outcome measures toolbox: a step towards standardising outcome measures for physiotherapists working with lower limb amputees. Physiotherapy. 2015;101:e1357–e1358.
   Google Scholar
• Gailey RS. Predictive outcome measures versus fucntional outcome measures in the lower limb amputee. J Prosthetics Orthot. 2006;18:51–60.
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg N, Gottlieb A, Siev-Ner I, et al. Fall incidence and associated risk factors among people with a lower limb amputation during various stages of recovery–a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(15):1778–1787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter SW, Batchelor F, Hill KD, et al. Risk factors for falls in people with a lower limb amputation: a systematic review. Pm R. 2017;9(2):170–180.e1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hanspal RS, Fisher K, Nieveen R. Prosthetic socket fit comfort score. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(22):1278–1280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gailey R, Kristal A, Lucarevic J, et al. The development and internal consistency of the comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey in active lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019;43(1):80–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baars EC, Schrier E, Dijkstra PU, et al. Prosthesis satisfaction in lower limb amputees. Medicine. 2018;97(39):e12296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond D, Gallagher P, Henderson-Slater D, et al. Pain and psychosocial adjustment to lower limb amputation amongst prosthesis users. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32(2):244–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehde DM, Czerniecki JM, Smith DG, et al. Chronic phantom sensations, phantom pain, residual limb pain, and other regional pain after lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81(8):1039–1044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan SJ, Friedly JL, Amtmann D, et al. Cross-Sectional assessment of factors related to pain intensity and pain interference in lower limb prosthesis users. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(1):105–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skeat J, Perry A. Factors influencing the use of outcome measures for patients with low back pain: a survey of New Zealand physical therapists. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43(2):110–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, et al. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(8):931–938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales (TAPES). Rehabil Psychol. 2000;45(2):130–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles CL, Pincus T, Carnes D, et al. Measuring pain self-efficacy. Clin J Pain. 2011;27(5):461–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta N, Leung C. The effect of post-amputation pain on health-related quality of life in lower limb amputees. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;0:1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horgan O, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: a review. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(14–15):837–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. Psychological adjustment and coping in adults with prosthetic limbs. Behav Med. 1999;25(3):117–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joslin R, Donovan-Hall M, Roberts L. Exploring the outcomes that matter most to young people treated for chronic pain: a qualitative study. Children. 2021;8(12):1170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ustun T, Chatterji S, Bickenbach J, et al. The international classification of functioning disability and health: a new tool for understanding disability and health. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(11–12):565–571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens PM. Prioritizing primary outcomes in prosthetic rehabilitation: Observations from recent evidence. J Prosthetics Orthot. 2021;33:82–87.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson OC. Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: a theoretical and practical guide. Qual Res Psychol. 2014;11(1):25–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest G, Namey E, Taylor J, et al. Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(6):693–708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320(7226):50–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar