Background: Quality of life (QoL) is increasingly being recognized as an important outcome for rehabilitation programs, and has mainly been used to compare the efficacy of interventions or to compare amputees with other diseased populations. There is relatively a limited number of studies primarily focusing on analyzing the multitude of factors influencing QoL in amputees. Objectives: To identify important background and amputation related factors which affect quality of life (QoL) in lower limb amputees, and to compare QoL profile of amputees' to that of general population. Study design: Cross-sectional. Methods: Lower limb amputees 18 years and above from a rehabilitation centre, a limb-fitting centre and four limb-fitting camps were interviewed (n ¼ 605). Structured questionnaires included patient background and amputation characteristics, and the MOS short-form health survey (SF-36) for assessing QoL. The SF-36 was administered to a general adult population using purposive sampling (n ¼ 184). Results: SF-36 PCS and MCS scores were found to be significantly lower for amputees when compared to those for the general population. In this study, employment status, use of an assistive device, use of a prosthesis, comorbidities, phantomlimb pain and residual stump pain were found to predict both PCS and MCS scores significantly, and explained 47.8% and 29.7% of variance respectively. Age and time since amputation accounted for an additional 3% of variance in PCS scores. Conclusions: The abovementioned factors should be addressed in order to ensure holistic reintegration and participation, and to enable the amputees to regain or maintain QoL. Prospective longitudinal studies are recommended to systematically study the change in QoL over time and to assess its determinants. Clinical relevanceProper appraisal of abovementioned factors in the rehabilitation programme would assist in establishing a treatment protocol, which would adequately address QoL in amputees.

BackgroundFrailty is highly prevalent in older people. Its serious adverse consequences, such as disability, are considered to be a public health problem. Therefore, disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people is considered to be a priority for research and clinical practice in geriatric care. With regard to disability prevention, valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added.MethodsA questionnaire was sent to 687 community-dwelling older people (≥ 70 years). Agreement between instruments, internal consistency, and construct validity of instruments were evaluated and compared.ResultsThe response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and the TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, the TFI and the SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. Scores on the three instruments correlated significantly with each other (GFI - TFI, r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ, r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ, r = 0.42) and with the GARS (GFI - GARS, r = 0.57; TFI - GARS, r = 0.61; SPQ - GARS, r = 0.46). The GFI and the TFI scores were, as expected, significantly related to age, sex, education and income.ConclusionsThe GFI and the TFI showed high internal consistency and construct validity in contrast to the SPQ. Based on these findings it is not yet possible to conclude whether the GFI or the TFI should be preferred; data on the predictive values of both instruments are needed. The SPQ seems less appropriate for postal screening of frailty among community-dwelling older people.

Lacunas were found in the methodological and study population characteristics of most of the studies. Prospective longitudinal studies are envisaged to systematically study the events following amputation, and the change in QoL over time. To enable this, amputee specific standardised and validated QoL instruments are needed to capture the multitude of facets influencing QoL in amputees, and thereby, facilitating direct comparison across studies.

No abstract