Employment status, job characteristics, and work-related health experience of people with a lower limb amputation in The Netherlands

2001 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanneke Schoppen ◽  
Annemarijke Boonstra ◽  
Johan W. Groothoff ◽  
Jaap de Vries ◽  
Ludwig N.H. Göeken ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Jutamanee Poonsiri ◽  
Rienk Dekker ◽  
Pieter U. Dijkstra ◽  
Juha M. Hijmans ◽  
Jan H. B. Geertzen

Abstract Background To evaluate cycling participation and identify barriers and facilitators related to cycling participation in people with a lower limb amputation (LLA) in the Netherlands. Methods A questionnaire was sent to adults with a LLA between March and August 2019 to obtain information regarding prosthesis, individual’s characteristics, amputation, cycling barriers and facilitators, and prosthetic satisfaction. The questionnaires were distributed via 8 orthopedic workshops, post and were given directly. To find cycling predictors, variables associated with cycling (p < 0.1) were entered into a logistic regression analysis. Non-significant variables were removed manually. Results Participants (n = 207, 71% males) had a mean age of 62.0 ± 13.0 years. The most frequent level of amputation was transtibial (42%), and trauma was the most frequent cause of amputation (43%). After the LLA, 141 participants (68%) cycled for recreation (80%), physical fitness (74%), and transport (50%). In the past six months, cyclists cycled for recreation (79%) and transport (66%). Most cycled less than once a day. Recreational cyclists cycled alone (75%) for a median duration of 45 min or 14 km per ride. Cyclists with a transportation purpose usually cycled to go shopping (80%) or to visit friends (68%), with a median duration of 20 min or five kilometers per ride. Cyclists reported more facilitators (median (IQR) = 5 (3, 7) than non-cyclists 0 (0, 3). The majority of cyclists reported a positive attitude toward cycling (89%) and cycled because of health benefits (81%). A dynamic foot (odds ratio: 5.2, 95% CI 2.0, 13.3) and a higher number of facilitators (odds ratio: 1.3, 95% CI 1.2, 1.5) positively predicted cycling, whereas the presence of other underlying diseases (odds ratio: 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.9) negatively predicted cycling (R2: 40.2%). Conclusion In the Netherlands, the majority of adults cycled after a LLA, mainly for recreational purposes. A dynamic foot, a higher number of facilitators, and no other underlying diseases increases the likelihood of cycling after a LLA. The results suggest that personal motivation and a higher mobility level could be the key to increasing cycling participation. Future research should determine the association between motivation, mobility levels, and cycling with a LLA.


2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cojanne Kars ◽  
Marianne Hofman ◽  
Jan H. B. Geertzen ◽  
Gert-Jan Pepping ◽  
Rienk Dekker

The numbers of lower limb amputees participating in recreational activity date back more than 25 years. Previous studies have shown that 60% of lower limb amputees participated in recreational activities, including sports. To date, research in The Netherlands into sports participation of this specific amputee population is insufficient. The purpose of the reported survey was to investigate the sports participation habits of lower limb amputees in the Province of Drenthe, The Netherlands, using a self-constructed questionnaire. A total of 105 lower limb amputees responded (36%), a large proportion of whom were traumatic amputees (31%). Of the respondents, 34 (32%) participated in some form of sport. Results indicated that participation in sport before the amputation was a predetermining factor for amputees to participate in sports whilst the level of amputation, age and etiology were not predetermining factors of participation in sports after a lower limb amputation.


BJS Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Gwilym ◽  
C Waldron ◽  
E Thomas-Jones ◽  
P Pallmann ◽  
R Preece ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Major Lower Limb Amputation (MLLA) is a life changing event with significant morbidity and mortality. Inaccurate risk prediction can lead to poor decision making, resulting in delay to definitive surgery, or undertaking amputation when not in the patient’s best interest. We aim to answer: In adult patients undergoing MLLA for chronic limb threatening ischaemia or diabetes, how accurately do health care professionals prospectively predict outcomes after MLLA, and how does this compare to existing prediction tools? Methods A multicentre prospective observational cohort study is being delivered through the Vascular and Endovascular Research Network. Dissemination was via an existing network of contacts and social media. Consecutive data will be collected for seven months from site launch date, including demographic data and pre-operative outcome predictions from surgeons, anaesthetists, and allied healthcare professionals. Follow-up data will comprise 30-day (mortality, morbidity, MLLA revision, surgical site infection, and blood transfusion) and 1-year (mortality, MLLA revision and ambulation). The accuracy of surgeons’ predictions will be evaluated and compared to pre-existing risk prediction scoring tools. Results PERCEIVE launched on 01/10/2020 with 23 centres (16 UK, 7 international) registered to collect data. 50 other centres (27 UK, 23 international) have expressed interest/are pursuing local audit/ethical approval. We aim to collect data on clinicians estimate of outcomes for over 500 patients. Discussion This study will utilise a trainee research network to provide data on the accuracy of healthcare professionals’ predictions of outcomes following MLLA and compare this to the utility of existing prediction tools in this patient cohort.


Spinal Cord ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 174-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Cavigelli ◽  
R Fischer ◽  
V Dietz

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e0170705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Dillon ◽  
Lauren V. Fortington ◽  
Muhammad Akram ◽  
Bircan Erbas ◽  
Friedbert Kohler

1996 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Kulkarni ◽  
C. Collin ◽  
J. Collin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document