Investigando a través de las culturas: Cuestiones de ética y poder

Kulturelle Unterschiede manifestieren sich in allen Beziehungen, Forschungsbeziehungen eingeschlossen. Akademische Forschung wird über verschiedene Kulturen hinweg durchgeführt, die nicht durch ethnische Grenzen beschrieben werden können. Welche Dimensionen müssen akademische Forscher und Forscherinnen besonders berücksichtigen, wenn sie interkulturelle Projekte konzipieren und umsetzen? Eine Durchsicht der relevanten Literatur zeigt, dass ethische Fragen immer schon mit Machtaspekten in der Forschungsbeziehung verbunden sind: Zustimmung, der Prozess des Forschens, Forschungsdesign, Dateneigentum und Datennutzung ergeben sich in der Folge als wichtige Dimension zum Verstehen von Ethik und Macht. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0403396Cultural diversity manifests in all rela­tionships, including research relationships. Aca­dem­ic investigators work across a broad range of cultures that goes beyond ethnicity. What implica­tions are most important for academic researchers to consider when designing and implementing a project? A review of relevant literature suggests that ethical implications begin with the power aspects in the research relationship. Consent, research processes, research design, data owner­ship, and uses of data are also salient issues that arise. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0403396La diversidad cultural se manifiesta en todas las relaciones, incluyendo las relaciones de investigación. Los investigadores académicos trabajan sobre una amplia gama de culturas que va más allá de la identidad étnica. ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones más importantes que los investigadores académicos deben considerar cuando diseñan y desarrollan un proyecto? Una revisión de literatura relevante sugiere que las implicaciones éticas comienzan con aspectos de poder en las relaciones de investigación. El consentimiento, los procesos de investigación, el diseño de investigación, la propiedad de los datos sus usos son también asuntos relevantes a tratar. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040339

Researching Across Cultures: Issues of Ethics and Power

Kulturelle Unterschiede manifestieren sich in allen Beziehungen, Forschungsbeziehungen eingeschlossen. Akademische Forschung wird über verschiedene Kulturen hinweg durchgeführt, die nicht durch ethnische Grenzen beschrieben werden können. Welche Dimensionen müssen akademische Forscher und Forscherinnen besonders berücksichtigen, wenn sie interkulturelle Projekte konzipieren und umsetzen? Eine Durchsicht der relevanten Literatur zeigt, dass ethische Fragen immer schon mit Machtaspekten in der Forschungsbeziehung verbunden sind: Zustimmung, der Prozess des Forschens, Forschungsdesign, Dateneigentum und Datennutzung ergeben sich in der Folge als wichtige Dimension zum Verstehen von Ethik und Macht.Cultural diversity manifests in all rela­tionships, including research relationships. Aca­dem­ic investigators work across a broad range of cultures that goes beyond ethnicity. What implica­tions are most important for academic researchers to consider when designing and implementing a project? A review of relevant literature suggests that ethical implications begin with the power aspects in the research relationship. Consent, research processes, research design, data owner­ship, and uses of data are also salient issues that arise.La diversidad cultural se manifiesta en todas las relaciones, incluyendo las relaciones de investigación. Los investigadores académicos trabajan sobre una amplia gama de culturas que va más allá de la identidad étnica. ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones más importantes que los investigadores académicos deben considerar cuando diseñan y desarrollan un proyecto? Una revisión de literatura relevante sugiere que las implicaciones éticas comienzan con aspectos de poder en las relaciones de investigación. El consentimiento, los procesos de investigación, el diseño de investigación, la propiedad de los datos sus usos son también asuntos relevantes a tratar

Researching Across Cultures: Issues of Ethics and Power

Cultural diversity manifests in all rela­tionships, including research relationships. Aca­dem­ic investigators work across a broad range of cultures that goes beyond ethnicity. What implica­tions are most important for academic researchers to consider when designing and implementing a project? A review of relevant literature suggests that ethical implications begin with the power aspects in the research relationship. Consent, research processes, research design, data owner­ship, and uses of data are also salient issues that arise. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040339

Demographics and discharge outcomes of dysvascular and non-vascular lower limb amputees at a subacute rehabilitation unit: a 7-year series

Objective To examine personal and social demographics, and rehabilitation discharge outcomes of dysvascular and non-vascular lower limb amputees. Methods In total, 425 lower limb amputation inpatient rehabilitation admissions (335 individuals) from 2005 to 2011 were examined. Admission and discharge descriptive statistics (frequency, percentages) were calculated and compared by aetiology. Results Participants were male (74%), aged 65 years (s.d. 14), born in Australia (72%), had predominantly dysvascular aetiology (80%) and a median length of stay 48 days (interquartile range (IQR): 25–76). Following amputation, 56% received prostheses for mobility, 21% (n = 89) changed residence and 28% (n = 116) required community services. Dysvascular amputees were older (mean 67 years, s.d. 12 vs 54 years, s.d. 16; P < 0.001) and recorded lower functional independence measure – motor scores at admission (z = 3.61, P < 0.001) and discharge (z = 4.52, P < 0.001). More nonvascular amputees worked before amputation (43% vs 11%; P < 0.001), were prescribed a prosthesis by discharge (73% vs 52%; P < 0.001) and had a shorter length of stay (7 days, 95% confidence interval: –3 to 17), although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions Differences exist in social and demographic outcomes between dysvascular and non-vascular lower limb amputees

What are the barriers and enablers that people with a lower limb amputation experience when walking in the community?

Purpose: To explore barriers and enablers to community walking perceived by people with lower limb amputation. Materials and methods: Three focus groups (n = 14 participants), using purposive sampling, were conducted with people with lower limb amputation who used a prosthesis to walk in the community. Three investigators analyzed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Results: Themes aligned with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains. Barriers related to body function and structure included prosthetic function, residual limb integrity, phantom limb pain and other medical issues, with optimal prosthetic function and adequate fitness identified as enablers. Personal barriers included challenges adjusting to change, whereas personal enablers included being able to adjust to change, having a positive attitude, goal setting and a purpose for community walking. Environmental barriers included physical (e.g., terrain, crowds, climate) and social (e.g., unwanted attention and finances). Environmental enablers included aids, transport, preparation, social support and finances. Community walking was essential to participation in work, leisure, social activities and family roles. Conclusion: Walking in the community for people with a lower limb amputation presents many barriers, but enablers have also been identified. Targeted assessments and interventions, and appropriate environmental planning may assist in minimizing barriers to community walking.Implications for rehabilitation Although rehabilitation for people with lower limb amputation should continue to optimise body function and structure (such as strength, fitness, pain and prosthetic function) to help prepare individuals for walking in the community, personal and environmental factors should also be addressed. Optimising an individual’s personal enablers may facilitate community walking; this may include strategies to assist with adjusting to change, setting goals, instilling a positive attitude towards walking, and seeing a purpose for walking in the community. Enhancing environmental (physical and social) enablers and minimising environmental barriers to walking in the community may be possible through environmental planning (e.g. infrastructure such as lifts), social awareness and education

Are people with lower limb amputation changing? A seven-year analysis of patient characteristics at admission to inpatient rehabilitation and at discharge

What are the characteristics of people with lower limb amputation at admission to, and discharge from, subacute rehabilitation? Have these characteristics changed over time?A total of 425 lower limb amputation inpatient rehabilitation admissions (335 individuals) from 2005 to 2011 were examined. Admission characteristics, including aetiology, gender, age, amputation level, cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)), indoor mobility aid, motor function (Functional Independence Measure motor subscale) and number and type of comorbidities, and discharge characteristics, including prosthetic prescription, motor function, discharge mobility aid, and destination were compared by admission date and year.Proportion of people with lower limb amputation with nonvascular aetiology increased over time (2004, 15% to 2011, 24%) (ß = -181.836, p

Barriers and enablers to community walking in people with lower limb amputation

Research ObjectivesTo determine barriers and enablers to community walking perceived by people with lower limb amputation.DesignQualitative study involving three focus groups. Data collection was ceased when data saturation was achieved. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis underpinned by phenomenology.SettingMetropolitan area, Australia.Participants14 people with lower limb amputation, living in the community (age range 32-71years; K level 1-4; 4-24 months since amputation; 6 Minute Walk Test 50-505m; 9 males; 2 bilateral amputations; 1 person lived rurally).InterventionsN/A.Main Outcome Measure(s)Participants were asked to talk about their experiences walking in the community, and what they felt made walking in the community more and less difficult.ResultsThree main themes were identified and align with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework: personal factors, environmental factors and health condition. Personal barriers included time, finance and adjusting to change. Personal enablers included having a purpose, motivation and previous exercise beliefs. Environmental barriers were both physical (e.g. terrain, ambience, density) and social (e.g. lack of social support and awareness). Environmental enablers included preparation, aids/equipment and social support. Barriers related to health condition included prosthesis-related factors, residual limb integrity, other medical issues, fitness, pain and falls. Interestingly, many participants suggested that falls were an expected part of the journey. Health condition enablers included strength and fitness. Participants reported strategies they use to negotiate personal, environmental and health condition barriers.ConclusionsWalking in the community with a lower limb amputation presents many barriers, but enablers have also been identified. Targeted assessments and interventions and appropriate environmental planning may assist in minimising barriers to community walking