OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of perceived environmental barriers in a population of amputees; to compare and contrast those barriers reported by amputees with reported barriers of a sample of disabled and nondisabled persons; and to identify the correlates of barriers among amputees. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A community sample who were interviewed by telephone. PARTICIPANTS: A stratified sample by etiology of 914 community-dwelling persons with limb loss. INTERVENTION: Telephone interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency (never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, daily) and magnitude (little problem, big problem) of perceived environmental barriers in 5 domains as measured by the Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors-Short Form (CHIEF-SF), characteristics of the amputation, prosthetic use, and sociodemographic characteristics of the amputee. RESULTS: The majority (87%) of persons surveyed reported barriers in 1 or more areas with 57% reporting barriers in 4 or more of the 5 domains (policies, physical/structural, work/school, attitudes/support, and services/assistance subscales). Mean frequency-magnitude scores were lower for amputees with cancer-related amputation across all subscales, while traumatic amputees reported the greatest perceived barriers, except in the area of services/assistance. Across all domains, poverty level and comorbidity were significant predictors of significant barriers (CHIEF-SF score >/=3; range, 0-8). When compared with a general population sample of disabled and nondisabled Americans, amputees were more likely to perceive barrier in all areas except work/school. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived environmental barriers among persons with limb loss are highly prevalent. Reduction of environmental barriers may lead to reduction of disability and improvement of overall quality of life for amputees.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of perceived environmental barriers in a population of amputees; to compare and contrast those barriers reported by amputees with reported barriers of a sample of disabled and nondisabled persons; and to identify the correlates of barriers among amputees. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A community sample who were interviewed by telephone. PARTICIPANTS: A stratified sample by etiology of 914 community-dwelling persons with limb loss. INTERVENTION: Telephone interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency (never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, daily) and magnitude (little problem, big problem) of perceived environmental barriers in 5 domains as measured by the Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors-Short Form (CHIEF-SF), characteristics of the amputation, prosthetic use, and sociodemographic characteristics of the amputee. RESULTS: The majority (87%) of persons surveyed reported barriers in 1 or more areas with 57% reporting barriers in 4 or more of the 5 domains (policies, physical/structural, work/school, attitudes/support, and services/assistance subscales). Mean frequency-magnitude scores were lower for amputees with cancer-related amputation across all subscales, while traumatic amputees reported the greatest perceived barriers, except in the area of services/assistance. Across all domains, poverty level and comorbidity were significant predictors of significant barriers (CHIEF-SF score >/=3; range, 0-8). When compared with a general population sample of disabled and nondisabled Americans, amputees were more likely to perceive barrier in all areas except work/school. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived environmental barriers among persons with limb loss are highly prevalent. Reduction of environmental barriers may lead to reduction of disability and improvement of overall quality of life for amputees.
Authors: Kirsten K Ness; Melissa M Hudson; Jill P Ginsberg; Rajaram Nagarajan; Sue C Kaste; Neyssa Marina; John Whitton; Leslie L Robison; James G Gurney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ecaterina Vasluian; Ingrid G M de Jong; Wim G M Janssen; Margriet J Poelma; Iris van Wijk; Heleen A Reinders-Messelink; Corry K van der Sluis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pedro Magalhães; Daniel P Capingana; Amílcar B T Silva; Inês R Capunge; Mauer A A Gonçalves Journal: Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med Date: 2011-09-19
Authors: Lucersia Nichols; Paul B Tchounwou; Leandro Mena; Daniel Sarpong Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sheyla R C Furtado; Rosana F Sampaio; Daniela V Vaz; Brena A S Pinho; Isabella O Nascimento; Marisa C Mancini Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.377