Finco M G, McDonald Cody L, Moudy Sarah C
Department of Anatomy and Physiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2025 Jan;106(1):26-36. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2024.07.019. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
To elicit the preferred terminology among people with limb difference as well as health care and/or research professionals.
Cross-sectional survey.
Online.
A convenience sample of N=122 individuals (people with limb difference, n=65; health care and/or research professionals, n=57) completed an online survey. People were included if they (1) were aged ≥18 years; (2) self-identified as having limb difference (regardless of etiology) or as a health care or research professional (with experience working with people with limb difference); and (3) lived in the United States for most of the time in their selected role.
Not applicable.
Importance of terminology, preference toward person-first or identity-first terms, preferred terms, and individual perspectives on terminology preferences.
Most participants identified as White (92.6%). Age significantly differed between groups (people with limb difference, 49.9±15.4y; professionals, 41.0±14.3y; P=.001). Approximately 50% of people with limb difference stated terminology was very or extremely important, compared to 70% of professionals (χ=16.6, P=.002). While 73.7% of professionals reported a preference for person-first terminology, the sample of people with limb difference were more evenly split, as 42.9% reported a preference for identity-first terminology and 50.8% reported a preference for person-first terminology. The most frequently selected limb and population terms, respectively, were residual limb and individual/person with limb difference; however, many people with limb difference indicated they preferred "amputee" when speaking about a population.
Most of the participants indicated terminology was very or extremely important, and both groups tended to prefer the terms residual limb (limb term) and individual/person with limb difference (population term). However, this study was not intended to recommend terminology, but rather help inform terminology choices that are centered around people with limb difference. Individuality and context should be considered when deciding terminology. Future studies should include more participants from racially/ethnically minoritized groups and people with limb difference who have dysvascular and/or congenital etiologies.
了解肢体差异者以及医疗保健和/或研究专业人员中偏好的术语。
横断面调查。
在线。
N = 122名个体的便利样本（肢体差异者65名；医疗保健和/或研究专业人员57名）完成了一项在线调查。符合以下条件的人员被纳入：(1) 年龄≥18岁；(2) 自我认定有肢体差异（无论病因）或为医疗保健或研究专业人员（有与肢体差异者合作的经验）；(3) 在选定角色中大部分时间居住在美国。
不适用。
术语的重要性、对以人为主或身份优先术语的偏好、偏好的术语以及对术语偏好的个人观点。
大多数参与者自我认定为白人（92.6%）。两组之间年龄存在显著差异（肢体差异者，49.9±15.4岁；专业人员，41.0±14.3岁；P = 0.001）。约50%的肢体差异者表示术语非常或极其重要，而专业人员中这一比例为70%（χ = 16.6，P = 0.002）。虽然73.7%的专业人员表示偏好以人为主的术语，但肢体差异者样本的态度更为分散，42.9%表示偏好身份优先术语，50.8%表示偏好以人为主的术语。最常被选中的肢体和群体术语分别是残肢和肢体差异个体/人；然而，许多肢体差异者表示他们在谈论群体时更喜欢“截肢者”一词。
大多数参与者表示术语非常或极其重要，两组都倾向于偏好残肢（肢体术语）和肢体差异个体/人（群体术语）。然而，本研究并非旨在推荐术语，而是帮助为围绕肢体差异者的术语选择提供信息。在决定术语时应考虑个体差异和具体情境。未来的研究应纳入更多来自种族/族裔少数群体的参与者以及患有血管性和/或先天性病因的肢体差异者。
