Despite growing evidence of racial and institutional discrimination on minoritized communities and its negative effect on health, there are still gaps in the current literature identifying health disparities among minoritized communities. This review aims to identify health barriers faced by relatively less studied migrant subgroups including documented temporary foreign workers and refugees residing in high-income Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries focusing on the structural origins of differential health outcomes. We searched Medline, CINAHL, and Embase databases for papers describing health barriers for these groups published in English between 1 January 2011 and 30 July 2021. Two independent reviewers conducted a title, abstract, and full text screening with any discrepancies resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Extracted data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. Of the 381 articles that underwent full-text review, 27 articles were included in this review. We identified housing conditions, immigration policies, structural discrimination, and exploitative labour practices as the four major emerging themes that impacted the health and the access to healthcare services of our study populations. Our findings highlight the multidimensional nature of health inequities among migrant populations and a need to examine how the broader context of these factors influence their daily experiences.

Canada lacks a national data source on individuals with limb loss and limb difference (LLD), which limits understanding of incidence, prevalence, risk factors, etiology, and healthcare outcomes. In the absence of standardized data collection, the provision of LLD healthcare services in Canada remains inconsistent. The objective of this study was to gather key interest groups’ perspectives on the development of a Canadian LLD registry. Invitees were identified through professional networks and snowball recruitment techniques. A two-round modified Delphi approach was utilized to identify key LLD registry domains via a pre-meeting survey followed by a virtual workshop on February 14, 2024. Of 96 invitees, 53 completed the survey, and 64 attended the workshop (63 from Canada and 1 from the United States). Five key LLD registry domains were identified: representation, standardization, practice-based evidence, research and innovation, and policy and funding. Inclusivity of diverse populations, national outcome measures adoption, and integration of psychosocial and clinical data was emphasized. Foreseen challenges included privacy concerns, necessary infrastructure, and resources to ensure long-term sustainability. Despite these challenges, a Canadian LLD registry could support advocacy, strengthen practice-based evidence, enhance research collaboration, improve clinical care, and inform population-level policies. Efforts to develop the registry are ongoing. Layman's Abstract Canada currently lacks a national registry of individuals with limb loss and limb difference (LLD), which limits our understanding of how many Canadians have limb loss or limb difference, and the effectiveness of healthcare services. Without consistent national data collection, it is impossible to understand regional differences in care, including prosthetic interventions and rehabilitation. This initiative gathered insights from representatives of the LLD community on establishing a Canadian LLD registry to improve research, healthcare delivery, and advocacy. Ninety-six LLD experts and professionals were identified to participate in a two-stage process that included a survey and virtual workshop. Fifty-three individuals (55%) completed the survey. On February 14, 2024, 64 (67%) individuals (63 Canadian and 1 American) attended the virtual workshop. The workshop included presentations on the development of the American Limb Loss and Preservation registry and the Canadian Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury registry, and measuring Canadian LLD outcomes. The meeting explored the feasibility, vision, and strategies for creating a Canadian LLD registry. Findings from the survey and workshop showed strong support for the registry, and workshop attendees discussed a number of critical areas for its development and sustainability. While some challenges regarding privacy, infrastructure, and sustainability still need to be addressed, there was agreement among meeting attendees on a strategy to start planning a registry. A Canadian registry would support advocacy efforts, enhance clinical care, encourage collaborative research, and provide essential data about care nationwide to ensure that the health and social care needs of the LLD community are met. Work is continuing to create and fund a Canadian LLD registry. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/46909/34865 How To Cite: Mayo A.L, Hitzig S.L, Zidarov D, MacKay C, Kaufman K.R, Noonan V.K, et al. A national strategy for a Canadian limb loss and limb difference registry. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2026; Volume 9, Issue 1, No. 3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v9i1.46909 Corresponding Author: Dr. Amanda L. Mayo, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, Affiliations: 1) St. John’s Rehab, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2) St. John’s Rehab Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3) Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.E-Mail: amanda.mayo@sunnybrook.caORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7061-2529

Novel surgical treatments for painful neuromas are increasingly used, but determining which provides the greatest benefit has been difficult due to the inconsistent use of outcome measures. We mapped the current literature of outcome measures used to evaluate peripheral nerve surgery for the management of symptomatic neuromas in patients who underwent an adult‐acquired upper extremity amputation (UEA). Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL were searched for primary research written in the English language from inception to February 2023. The search yielded 1137 articles, of which 35 were included for final analysis. Studies varied in their assessment of pain, health‐related quality of life (HRQOL), neurotrophic measures, psychological and sensorimotor function, highlighting a consensus on crucial domains but also revealing significant heterogeneity in the use and application of outcome measures among primary studies. Our findings highlight the need to establish common standards that reflect the best evidence and unique needs of the UEA population. This includes developing a core outcome set, utilizing multi‐center trials, and maintaining flexibility to adapt to ongoing advancements in patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) research.

Neuromas are aberrant axonal growths that may develop after amputations and contribute to residual-limb and/or phantom-limb pain. Burgeoning surgical approaches for treating neuroma pain include targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and regenerative peripheral nerve interface (RPNI) surgery. However, little is known regarding functional outcomes postoperatively. The scoping review aimed to examine prosthesis outcomes among individuals with acquired amputations who have undergone TMR and/or RPNI surgery for neuromas. The study protocol was published on Open Science Framework. A search was conducted across MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. An ascendancy approach was used to assess citation lists of select articles. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts after pilot testing, with input from a senior reviewer. Nineteen studies were included. The studies predominantly assessed: TMR only (n = 15), upper extremity amputation only (n = 13), traumatic amputation only (n = 8), and many were case reports or case series (n = 13). Thirteen studies reported prosthesis use pre- and postoperatively. Eleven studies indicated positive change in prosthesis use postoperatively. Two studies indicated no change. Variable outcome measures were used to describe prosthetic use post-TMR/RPNI surgery. In conclusion, literature regarding prosthesis outcomes post-TMR/RPNI surgery is insufficient to support a systematic review. Observations regarding prosthesis use must be interpreted within the context of multiple limitations. Minimal information is available regarding timing of prosthesis wear initiation, prosthesis tolerance, and barriers to prosthesis use. Larger studies are required to support the development of postsurgical rehabilitation protocols.