Background: Limb loss significantly impacts physical function, psychosocial well-being, and community participation. Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) aims to address these needs, yet its role in limb-loss care remains incompletely defined.
Objective: To synthesize current evidence on CBR for individuals with limb-loss, focusing on functional outcomes, psychosocial recovery, participation, and equity. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (inception–2025). Search terms included amputation, limb-loss, community-based rehabilitation, home-based rehabilitation, participation, and peer support. Studies involving adults with limb-loss evaluating community- or post-discharge rehabilitation outcomes were included. Studies on inpatient care, non-amputee populations, or non-rehabilitation interventions were excluded. Of 30 records identified, 12 met inclusion criteria.
Results: Twelve studies were included. Community-based interventions (n=5) showed mixed but overall positive effects on mobility, pain, and quality of life, with greater benefit in supervised, higher-intensity programs. Peer support (n=4) improved psychosocial adjustment, self-efficacy, and satisfaction, with potential mobility benefits. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies (n=5) highlighted the role of psychosocial factors, environmental barriers, and identity reconstruction in reintegration. Prosthetic provision was essential but limited by access, comfort, and contextual factors. Studies in low- and middle-income settings (n=4) identified significant disparities in access to rehabilitation and prosthetic care. Participation outcomes were inconsistently measured despite their importance to recovery.
Conclusion: CBR extends beyond physical rehabilitation to include psychosocial adaptation and participation. Integrating peer support, prioritizing participation outcomes, and addressing inequities are critical to optimizing care.
Objective: To synthesize current evidence on CBR for individuals with limb-loss, focusing on functional outcomes, psychosocial recovery, participation, and equity. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (inception–2025). Search terms included amputation, limb-loss, community-based rehabilitation, home-based rehabilitation, participation, and peer support. Studies involving adults with limb-loss evaluating community- or post-discharge rehabilitation outcomes were included. Studies on inpatient care, non-amputee populations, or non-rehabilitation interventions were excluded. Of 30 records identified, 12 met inclusion criteria.
Results: Twelve studies were included. Community-based interventions (n=5) showed mixed but overall positive effects on mobility, pain, and quality of life, with greater benefit in supervised, higher-intensity programs. Peer support (n=4) improved psychosocial adjustment, self-efficacy, and satisfaction, with potential mobility benefits. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies (n=5) highlighted the role of psychosocial factors, environmental barriers, and identity reconstruction in reintegration. Prosthetic provision was essential but limited by access, comfort, and contextual factors. Studies in low- and middle-income settings (n=4) identified significant disparities in access to rehabilitation and prosthetic care. Participation outcomes were inconsistently measured despite their importance to recovery.
Conclusion: CBR extends beyond physical rehabilitation to include psychosocial adaptation and participation. Integrating peer support, prioritizing participation outcomes, and addressing inequities are critical to optimizing care.