Advertisement

Understanding Adjustment and Coping to Limb Loss and Absence through Phenomenologies of Prosthesis Use

  • Craig D. Murray
Chapter

Abstract

“Adjustment” and “coping” are two interrelated psychologically based concepts which have been applied and explored extensively in research on chronic illness and disability. These areas are often explored using structured, quantitative research methods, where coping and adapting are seen as final adaptive steps or stages made in response to ill health or disability. These concepts and methodological frameworks have similarly been used to explore amputation, congenital limb deficiency or absence and prosthesis use. However, more recently researchers have begun to use phenomenologically based qualitative methods to explore the meanings and experience of illness and disability from the vantage point of those concerned, so that what it is to cope or adapt, and how this is negotiated, is informed by the perspectives of those having the relevant experience rather than through the application of priori theoretical frameworks. Within this chapter, I summarise the findings of a large-scale project, which aimed to explore the meanings and experience of prosthesis use for both people with acquired amputation and congenital limb absence or deformity. The key theme domains to be identified in this work are the embodied experience, personal and social meanings of prosthesis use. This work highlights the subtle and complex ways in which such persons manage, negotiate and experience their identity in everyday life, and therefore how they adapt to and cope with their changing circumstances. The outcomes of this work have a number of implications for health professionals working with this client group which are discussed.

Keywords

Personal Meaning Social Meaning Phantom Limb Limb Loss Residual Limb 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Balance R, Wilson B, Harder JA (1989) Factors affecting myoelectric prosthetic limb use and wearing patterns in the juvenile unilateral below-elbow amputee. Can J Occup Ther 56(3):132–137Google Scholar
  2. Charmaz K (1995) The body, identity, and self: adapting to impairment. Sociol Q 36(4):657–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Desmond DM (2007) Coping, affective distress and psychosocial adjustment among people with traumatic upper limb amputations. J Psychosom Res 62(1):15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dise-Lewis JE (1989) Psychological adaptation to limb loss. In: Atkins DJ, Meyer RH (eds) Comprehensive management of the upper-limb amputee. Springer, New York, pp 165–172Google Scholar
  5. Dunn DS (1996) Well-being following amputation: salutary effects of positive meaning, optimism and control. Rehabil Psychol 41(4):285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frank G (1986) On embodiment: a case of congenital limb deficiency in American culture. Cult Med Psychiatry 10:189–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frank G (1988) Beyond stigma: visibility and self-empowerment of persons with congenital limb deficiencies. J Soc Issues 44(1):95–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedmann LW (1978) The psychological rehabilitation of the amputee. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallagher P, McLachlan M (2001) Adjustment to an artificial limb: a qualitative perspective. J Health Psychol 6(1):85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner C (1986) Public aid. Urban Life 15:37–69Google Scholar
  11. Goffman E (1963) Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Ham RO, Cotton LT (1991) Limb amputation: from aetiology to rehabilitation. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Horgan O, MacLachlan M (2004) Psychosocial adjustment to lower limb amputation: a review. Disabil Rehabil 26(14–15):837–850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaiser SB, Freeman CM, Wingate SB (1985) Stigmata and negotiated outcomes: management of appearance by persons with physical disabilities. Deviant Behav 6(2):205–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaiser SB, Wingate SB, Freeman CM, Chandler JL (1987) Acceptance of physical disability and attitudes toward personal appearance. Rehabil Psychol 32(1):51–58Google Scholar
  16. Kelly MP, Field D (1996) Medical sociology, chronic illness and the body. Sociol Health Illn 18(2):241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Millstein SG, Heger H, Hunter GA (1986) Prosthetic use in adult and upper limb amputees: a comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 10:27–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray CD (2004) An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disabil Rehabil 26(16):963–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murray CD (2005) The social meanings of prosthesis use. J Health Psychol 10(3):425–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray CD (2008) Embodiment and prosthetics. In: Gallagher P, Desmond D, MacLachlan M (eds) Psychoprosthetics: state of the knowledge. Springer, London, pp 119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murray CD (2009) The personal meanings of prosthesis use. Disabil Rehabil 31(7):573–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oaksford K, Frude N, Cuddihy R (2005) Positive coping and stress-related psychological growth following lower limb amputation. Rehabil Psychol 50(3):266–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Phillips MJ (1985) “Try harder”: the experience of disability and the dilemma of normalization. J Soc Sci 22(4):45–47Google Scholar
  24. Radley A (1993) The role of metaphor in adjustment to chronic illness. In: Radley A (ed.) Worlds of illness: biographical and cultural perspectives on health and disease. Routledge, London, 109–123Google Scholar
  25. Rybarczyk BD, Nyenhuis DL, Nicholas JJ, Schulz R, Alioto RJ, Blair C (1992) Social discomfort and depression in a sample of adults with leg amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 73(12):1169–1173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rybarczyk BD, Nyenhuis DL, Nicholas JJ, Cash SM, Kaiser J (1995) Body image, perceived social stigma, and the prediction of psychosocial adjustment to leg amputation. Rehabil Psychol 40(2):95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saradjian A, Thompson AR, Datta D (2008) The experience of men using an upper limb prosthesis following amputation: positive coping and minimizing feeling different. Disabil Rehabil 30(11):871–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schulz M (2009) Coping psychologically with amputation. Vasa 38(74):72–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shilling C (1993) The body and social theory. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith JA (2004) Reflections on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 1(1):39–54Google Scholar
  31. Stein RB, Walley OT (1983) Functional comparison of upper extremity amputees using myoelectric and conventional prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 64:243–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Williamson GM, Schulz R, Bridges MW, Behan AM (1994) Social and psychological factors in adjustment to limb amputation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 9:249–268Google Scholar
  33. Williamson GM (1995) Restriction of normal activities among older amputees. J Clin Geropsychol 1:229–242Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health and MedicineLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations