Journal
BMC SPORTS SCIENCE MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -Publisher
BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13102-021-00302-3
Keywords
Cycling; Sport; Transport; Recreation; Amputees; Prostheses; Barriers; Facilitators
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
In the Netherlands, the majority of adults with lower limb amputation continued cycling after amputation, mainly for recreational purposes. A dynamic foot, a higher number of facilitators, and absence of other underlying diseases increase the likelihood of cycling after amputation.
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 (R-2: 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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available