liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Perceived self-efficacy and specific self-reported outcomes in persons withlower-limb amputation using a non-microprocessor-controlled versus amicroprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee
School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; dDepartment of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, SwedenAdvanced Reconstruction of Extremities, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden .
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine.
School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
2018 (English)In: Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, ISSN 1748-3107, E-ISSN 1748-3115, Vol. 13, no 3, p. 220-225Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: To measure self-efficacy in a group of individuals who have undergone a lower-limb amputationand investigate the relationship between self-efficacy and prosthetic-specific outcomes including prostheticuse, mobility, amputation-related problems and global health. A second purpose was to examine ifdifferences 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 forPersons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA). Forty-two individuals participated in the study. Twentythreeused 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 tothe Q-TFA prosthetic use, mobility and problem scores. High GSE scores were related to higher levels ofprosthetic use, mobility, global scores and negatively related to problem score. No significant differencewas 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-efficacywas related to higher level of mobility, global scores and fewer problems related to the amputationin individuals who have undergone a lower-limb amputation and were using a non-MPK or MPK knee.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2018. Vol. 13, no 3, p. 220-225
Keywords [en]
Self-efficacy; amputation; prosthetic limb; prosthetic knee; trans-femoral amputation
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology Physiotherapy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-145703DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1306590PubMedID: 28366038OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-145703DiVA, id: diva2:1191162
Available from: 2018-03-16 Created: 2018-03-16 Last updated: 2018-03-16

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Samuelsson, Kersti

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Samuelsson, Kersti
By organisation
Division of Community MedicineFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine
In the same journal
Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and EpidemiologyPhysiotherapy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 84 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf