Back

What Matters Most: A Multi-Stakeholder Study of Outcome Domains in Lower-Limb Prosthesis Use

Ahmed, M. E.; Karlsson-Brown, S.; Koufaki, P.; Ahmadi, M.; Mico-Amigo, E. M.

2026-09-03 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.64898/2026.08.31.26361544 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: Lower-limb prosthesis use involves interacting physical, psychosocial, and device-related outcomes that may not be fully captured by conventional clinical assessment. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a stakeholder-informed framework of outcome domains relevant to meaningful everyday prosthesis use. Materials and Methods: A mixed-methods participatory design comprised a structured synthesis of selected clinically relevant content from five established patient-reported outcome measures; semi-structured interviews and importance and actionability ratings with 18 contributors (12 prosthesis users, four clinicians, and two industrial partners); and integration of the synthesis, qualitative, and rating findings. Interview records were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, and ratings were analysed descriptively. Results: The resulting framework comprised four interrelated domains: Mobility, Physical Function, Psychosocial Wellbeing, and Prosthesis Experience. Mobility showed the clearest convergence across stakeholder perspectives. Prosthesis users showed the largest importance actionability gap for Prosthesis Experience (4.5 vs 3.0), whereas clinicians showed the largest gap for Psychosocial Wellbeing (5.0 vs 3.0). Interviews highlighted day-to-day variability in prosthesis use and the influence of confidence, fatigue, comfort, environmental conditions, social context, and device usability. Conclusions: Meaningful outcome assessment in prosthetic rehabilitation should extend beyond mobility alone to consider physical function, psychosocial wellbeing, and prosthesis experience within everyday contexts. The proposed framework provides a stakeholder-informed foundation for multidimensional outcome assessment in prosthetic rehabilitation.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.